1

votes

Fruit confusion

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created September 07, 2013 at 12:44 AM

I know I have kind of asked this question before, but I don't understand why some people suggest no fruit if wanting to lose weight. I have heard that losing a few lbs has to do with lowering insulin levels, but if you are in a healthy paleo calorie deficient, then why in the world is lowering insulin levels important if the calorie deficient is what is causing the weight loss in the first place? Answers? Why do we have to "watch our fruit intake" rather than our OVERALL intake?

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 22, 2012
at 04:09 PM

thanks MarkES!!

61844af1187e745e09bb394cbd28cf23

(11058)

on October 22, 2012
at 02:27 PM

Unless you are eating cups of berries, they produce a relatively low insulin response. The "sometimes" apple will produce a larger one. It doesn't just come down to calories. Hormones have a LOT to do with it.

44349dd8bf3bc226731d2f6bd42e8124

(318)

on October 22, 2012
at 01:36 PM

Oh, forgot to mention over 30 lbs has been lost since August 1. I still have another 70 lbs to lose. But the weight has been falling off with little exercise. All because of the calorie deficit and keeping my carbs at an optimum level (around 40/day) for me.

Cbdc8318738324492f2d5918868ce4c9

(1211)

on October 22, 2012
at 01:05 PM

Amber, to help answer your original question, I added an example weight loss recommendation to lower fruit intake due to its fructose being considered a toxin. This example doesn't mean eliminate fruit, but rather "watch our fruit intake", as you put it. I also added an example supporting whole fruits. I can see how it can be confusing.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on October 22, 2012
at 01:02 AM

Oh, and a really interesting counterpoint I came across in a study recently - fructose out performs glucose or starch for maintaining blood sugar during exercise (presumably because it stores as liver glycogen, and thats pretty much all its useful for).

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on October 22, 2012
at 01:01 AM

This article says - "Of course, the amount where fructose becomes toxic and damaging varies for everybody depending on a multitude of factors, but a good rule of thumb for most healthy people is at around 50 grams of fructose per day.". Given at least half of all fruit sugar is not fructose, that means up to 100 grams of carbs a day is allowed from fruit, according to this article (in a healthy person). Youd use up that fructose allowance very fast with refined sugar, but thats a fair damn wack of fruit.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on October 22, 2012
at 12:57 AM

Fructose being bad in studies, is only in large amounts (ie, not at all equivilant to eating a bit of pineapple). And what about context, were the people in the studies highly active? (Answer, no).

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on October 22, 2012
at 12:56 AM

Fructose being bad in studies, is only in large amounts (ie, not at all equivilant to eating a bit of pineapple). And what about context, were the people in the studies highly active? (Answer, no). Theres also lots of low sugar fruits (apples, pears, berries). Cranberry is a good example, its primarily glucose, with virtually no glucose.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on October 22, 2012
at 12:16 AM

#1, Fruit it bad because it becomes fat -- Yeah, cause no one around here know what to do with fat. Also that is only true in the absence of soluble fiber -- But who cares about facts.

366c23d69eadce094a2b22299c58a424

(2988)

on October 21, 2012
at 11:57 PM

Also think that if fruit triggers excess hunger, there are 2 additional possibilities: a) never eat fruit except w/ a meal that includes lots of protein and fat (this is what I do) and b) if you're in the early stages of paleo and still having sugar cravings, give up fruit for 6-8 weeks while your body and your gut flora readjusts.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on October 21, 2012
at 11:15 PM

Here's a meta analysis of studies where adding some fructose decreased glycated hemoglobin levels: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22354959

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on October 21, 2012
at 11:04 PM

In the absence of lots of vegetable oils, does fructose balanced with glucose increase AGEs? I kinda doubt it.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:59 PM

Keep saying fats won't make you as hungry as carbs because of insulin or whatever, it still doesn't make it true. You're just speculating and I already sent you to some actual evidence that suggests you are wrong.

7b4641bc7c610f2944da66f79cc3378a

(298)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:44 PM

By the way, don't forget that fructose and PUFAs react easily to form AGEs which are harmful to our bodies. http://paleohacks.com/questions/27649/pufas-combined-with-sugar-ages So, I don't see any reason in eating fruits if one can get all vitamins and minerals they could possibly contain from other less toxic and more healthy sources.

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:39 PM

good comment thanks KA24!

7b4641bc7c610f2944da66f79cc3378a

(298)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:35 PM

Mscott, fats still do not trigger acute insulin response, so you won't get hungry for a longer time after eating fat compared to eating carbs.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:26 PM

Scope the comments for half a dozen studies showing fat to be not as satiating as carbs: http://paleohacks.com/questions/155875/addressing-fats-benefits-and-drawbacks/155886#155886

68294383ced9a0eafc16133aa80d1905

(5795)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:26 PM

Most of the time, when people are discussing the evils of Fructose, they are referring to HFCS, dried fruit and other concentrated sources. Yes, whole fruit sometimes gets lumped in, and rightfully so if you're talking about "bred-for-sweetness, pesticide-laden and oversized" whole fruit. The problem is, those following conventional "eat more FRUITS and vegetables" tend to 1) go for those over green leafy veg and 2) are rarely paying attention to quality and sourcing. If someone is eating organic, normal-sized fruit, I'd venture to say they likely aren't going to become obese by doing so.

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:17 PM

interesting. So again I see that the problem is that in most people it stimulates overeating, not so much because the evil fructose makes you fat. Because I too think most of those studies are done not so much on whole fruits :/ thanks for your comment!!

7b4641bc7c610f2944da66f79cc3378a

(298)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:16 PM

Almost all fruits contain lots of sugar. This is not what aids in weight loss. Exception are some berries. And counting calories does not work because not calories, but hormones are what matters. Compare calories from 100 g of fat and 200 g of carbs: in terms of energy they are almost equal, but fat does not cause insulin response like carbs do, so your feeling of satiety from fat will last longer than from carbs.

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:04 PM

Low carb intrigues me too, and I wonder what the science behind that is as well. I believe it falls along the same lines as staying away from fruit, but it still perplexes me why that would be an issue if in a deficient with a diet that involves those things. Are you still low carb now? Thank you for sharing!!

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 21, 2012
at 09:35 PM

I really like your comment though, as for me it doesn't trip the binge trigger either, and like you, it stops me from going to SAD food. soo thank you!! 1-2 fruits a day should take care of any craving i'd think.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on October 21, 2012
at 09:26 PM

Almost every one of those 10 reasons is based on studies using refined fructose, which is not the form of sugar found in most fruits (along with nutrition, most fruits contains equal amounts fructose and glucose which has not been shown to replicate such effects of fructose alone). Your article is poorly applicable to this discussion. Also, the statement you claim is wrong is not wrong.

68294383ced9a0eafc16133aa80d1905

(5795)

on October 21, 2012
at 09:15 PM

For example, someone in fantastic shape who is where they want, should ideally be able to eat whatever they want. Those who aren't, which is a majority of folks, fruit could be one of many things that may be tweaked and bring about results (both good or bad). To response to your follow-up question, it's less about the calories in/out impact of fruit, starch, etc than it is about the other things they might impact.

68294383ced9a0eafc16133aa80d1905

(5795)

on October 21, 2012
at 09:13 PM

You're taking too narrow of a perspective here. Calories only matter to a certain extent. Like others have said, someone who is "controlling calories" may be tracking things to a certain margin, but that margin may be negated and easily exceeded by hormonal and physiological responses to food. In an IDEAL WORLD, we should eat what is available, without thinking about it and stay in great shape. Every other mammal does it. However, they aren't compromised (as much) with many of the toxic and chemical-laden foods we are (even in the best sources) and the mental aspect of it.

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 21, 2012
at 09:03 PM

thank you for this comment. So fructose isn't really the culprit... it's still the calories (if over-eaten). See that makes sense to me. But when people say eliminate fruit because of the fructose... if it's about the calories and not the fruit, then why not cut out a little fat or meat instead? People demonize the fruit and I'm not sure why :/

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 21, 2012
at 08:41 PM

i don't really understand your answer... I am willing to comply with giving up fruit, i've done it. I just don't understand the science behind it. It also seems hard to stay zero fruit and starchy vegetables long term, and why would that result in more weight loss than equal calorie menu of fats and protein anyway? Does fructose really completely halt fat loss that much?

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 21, 2012
at 08:36 PM

thank you just about to read this!

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 21, 2012
at 08:36 PM

i don't really understand your answer... I am willing to comply with giving up fruit, i've done it. I just don't understand the science behind it. It also seems hard to stay zero fruit and starchy vegetables long term, and why does would that result in more weight loss than equal calorie menu of fats and protein? Does fructose really completely hault fat loss?

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 21, 2012
at 08:31 PM

see I totally understand that, but where I get confused is when people say the fructose is stopping the weight loss, not so much the calories :/

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on October 21, 2012
at 07:20 PM

Fruit, fruit, fruit.

  • C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

    asked by

    (748)
  • Views
    2.1K
  • Last Activity
    1254D AGO
Frontpage book

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

9 Answers

best answer

4
96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on October 21, 2012
at 08:56 PM

In my opinion it's a function of how much you need to lose and how your appetite responds to fruit.

As long as I avoid binge eating, I lose weight steadily even though I eat 1-2 pieces of whole fruit daily. And it doesn't trip the binge trigger either--the opposite, really, since I actually prefer nice ripe fruit over SAD treats.

I actually consider fruit an essential item as my GI tract just isn't happy without it. In my case, the old "apple a day" thing is true except I usually have fresh grapefruit and a banana.

Some people, though, find that fruit makes them hungry and triggers an overall increase in food intake. If you can still lose, as I do, no big deal but I understand why some will avoid it.

366c23d69eadce094a2b22299c58a424

(2988)

on October 21, 2012
at 11:57 PM

Also think that if fruit triggers excess hunger, there are 2 additional possibilities: a) never eat fruit except w/ a meal that includes lots of protein and fat (this is what I do) and b) if you're in the early stages of paleo and still having sugar cravings, give up fruit for 6-8 weeks while your body and your gut flora readjusts.

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 21, 2012
at 09:35 PM

I really like your comment though, as for me it doesn't trip the binge trigger either, and like you, it stops me from going to SAD food. soo thank you!! 1-2 fruits a day should take care of any craving i'd think.

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 21, 2012
at 09:03 PM

thank you for this comment. So fructose isn't really the culprit... it's still the calories (if over-eaten). See that makes sense to me. But when people say eliminate fruit because of the fructose... if it's about the calories and not the fruit, then why not cut out a little fat or meat instead? People demonize the fruit and I'm not sure why :/

3
7b4641bc7c610f2944da66f79cc3378a

on October 21, 2012
at 08:22 PM

10 Reasons Why Fructose Is Bad: http://paleodietlifestyle.com/10-reasons-why-fructose-is-bad/ And the statement ???calorie deficient is what is causing the weight loss in the first place??? is wrong.

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 21, 2012
at 08:36 PM

thank you just about to read this!

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:59 PM

Keep saying fats won't make you as hungry as carbs because of insulin or whatever, it still doesn't make it true. You're just speculating and I already sent you to some actual evidence that suggests you are wrong.

7b4641bc7c610f2944da66f79cc3378a

(298)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:44 PM

By the way, don't forget that fructose and PUFAs react easily to form AGEs which are harmful to our bodies. http://paleohacks.com/questions/27649/pufas-combined-with-sugar-ages So, I don't see any reason in eating fruits if one can get all vitamins and minerals they could possibly contain from other less toxic and more healthy sources.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on October 21, 2012
at 09:26 PM

Almost every one of those 10 reasons is based on studies using refined fructose, which is not the form of sugar found in most fruits (along with nutrition, most fruits contains equal amounts fructose and glucose which has not been shown to replicate such effects of fructose alone). Your article is poorly applicable to this discussion. Also, the statement you claim is wrong is not wrong.

7b4641bc7c610f2944da66f79cc3378a

(298)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:35 PM

Mscott, fats still do not trigger acute insulin response, so you won't get hungry for a longer time after eating fat compared to eating carbs.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on October 21, 2012
at 11:04 PM

In the absence of lots of vegetable oils, does fructose balanced with glucose increase AGEs? I kinda doubt it.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on October 22, 2012
at 12:57 AM

Fructose being bad in studies, is only in large amounts (ie, not at all equivilant to eating a bit of pineapple). And what about context, were the people in the studies highly active? (Answer, no).

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on October 21, 2012
at 11:15 PM

Here's a meta analysis of studies where adding some fructose decreased glycated hemoglobin levels: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22354959

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on October 22, 2012
at 12:56 AM

Fructose being bad in studies, is only in large amounts (ie, not at all equivilant to eating a bit of pineapple). And what about context, were the people in the studies highly active? (Answer, no). Theres also lots of low sugar fruits (apples, pears, berries). Cranberry is a good example, its primarily glucose, with virtually no glucose.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on October 22, 2012
at 12:16 AM

#1, Fruit it bad because it becomes fat -- Yeah, cause no one around here know what to do with fat. Also that is only true in the absence of soluble fiber -- But who cares about facts.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on October 22, 2012
at 01:02 AM

Oh, and a really interesting counterpoint I came across in a study recently - fructose out performs glucose or starch for maintaining blood sugar during exercise (presumably because it stores as liver glycogen, and thats pretty much all its useful for).

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:26 PM

Scope the comments for half a dozen studies showing fat to be not as satiating as carbs: http://paleohacks.com/questions/155875/addressing-fats-benefits-and-drawbacks/155886#155886

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on October 22, 2012
at 01:01 AM

This article says - "Of course, the amount where fructose becomes toxic and damaging varies for everybody depending on a multitude of factors, but a good rule of thumb for most healthy people is at around 50 grams of fructose per day.". Given at least half of all fruit sugar is not fructose, that means up to 100 grams of carbs a day is allowed from fruit, according to this article (in a healthy person). Youd use up that fructose allowance very fast with refined sugar, but thats a fair damn wack of fruit.

7b4641bc7c610f2944da66f79cc3378a

(298)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:16 PM

Almost all fruits contain lots of sugar. This is not what aids in weight loss. Exception are some berries. And counting calories does not work because not calories, but hormones are what matters. Compare calories from 100 g of fat and 200 g of carbs: in terms of energy they are almost equal, but fat does not cause insulin response like carbs do, so your feeling of satiety from fat will last longer than from carbs.

3
68294383ced9a0eafc16133aa80d1905

(5795)

on October 21, 2012
at 08:14 PM

I see fruit similar to many other things. Starch. High levels of fat. Sweeteners. Coffee. The list is endless and it differs for many people.

Someone who is active, fit and focuses on building/sustaining muscle mass, can get away with these things on a regular basis.

If you're in a place where you want to re-comp or drop fat, you may have to give these things up, especially the closer you get to your goals.

It drives me crazy when someone who is really trying to lose fat doesn't understand why many of these things are bad. They might be, they might not be. However, there are many other things that are non-negotiable and if someone isn't willing to comply with those things, it's really hard to see past it.

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 21, 2012
at 08:36 PM

i don't really understand your answer... I am willing to comply with giving up fruit, i've done it. I just don't understand the science behind it. It also seems hard to stay zero fruit and starchy vegetables long term, and why does would that result in more weight loss than equal calorie menu of fats and protein? Does fructose really completely hault fat loss?

68294383ced9a0eafc16133aa80d1905

(5795)

on October 21, 2012
at 09:13 PM

You're taking too narrow of a perspective here. Calories only matter to a certain extent. Like others have said, someone who is "controlling calories" may be tracking things to a certain margin, but that margin may be negated and easily exceeded by hormonal and physiological responses to food. In an IDEAL WORLD, we should eat what is available, without thinking about it and stay in great shape. Every other mammal does it. However, they aren't compromised (as much) with many of the toxic and chemical-laden foods we are (even in the best sources) and the mental aspect of it.

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 21, 2012
at 08:41 PM

i don't really understand your answer... I am willing to comply with giving up fruit, i've done it. I just don't understand the science behind it. It also seems hard to stay zero fruit and starchy vegetables long term, and why would that result in more weight loss than equal calorie menu of fats and protein anyway? Does fructose really completely halt fat loss that much?

68294383ced9a0eafc16133aa80d1905

(5795)

on October 21, 2012
at 09:15 PM

For example, someone in fantastic shape who is where they want, should ideally be able to eat whatever they want. Those who aren't, which is a majority of folks, fruit could be one of many things that may be tweaked and bring about results (both good or bad). To response to your follow-up question, it's less about the calories in/out impact of fruit, starch, etc than it is about the other things they might impact.

2
542e111a78f04359bf73567ff0163c52

on October 22, 2012
at 01:28 PM

I find that any kind of sugar..including the sugars in fruit cause inflammation in my body which halts my weight loss..or makes me gain weight. I have leaky gut..so I cannot digest a lot of things properly. This is one way that the sugar/fructose can affect someone's goals. So what works for some - does not work for others...unfortunately - we have to just learn to listen to our bodies.

2
Cbdc8318738324492f2d5918868ce4c9

(1211)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:11 PM

One theory is that fructose is a toxin (similar to omega-6 fats and wheat) and the body performs best on a low toxin diet, including burning fat.

I personally wonder if that really applies to whole fruits or if the issue is really processed or free fructose (HFCS) quantities. Supposedly, fructose itself doesn't increase insulin as it's mostly handled by the liver, but the glucose in fruit would increase blood glucose and therefore insulin.

I think there just might be something to sweet foods, like fruit, stimulating appetite to eat more food.

EDIT 10/22/2012:

Here is an example weight loss recommendation to lower fruit intake due to it's fructose being considered a toxin.

Perfect Health Diet: Weight Loss Version

The Three Keys for Weight Loss

The three keys for an effective and healthy weight loss diet, as I see it, are:

  1. Elimination of food toxins. Food toxins are the primary cause of obesity and you can???t expect to cure a condition by causing it!
  2. Perfect nourishment. The diet should be as nourishing as possible. The dieter should be in the ???plateau range??? of every nutrient ??? vitamins, minerals, organic molecules, carbs, protein, and fats.
  3. Calorie restriction. You have to be in energy deficit to lose weight.

The main food toxins to avoid are fructose, polyunsaturated fat, and wheat (see Why We Get Fat: Food Toxins). In my advice to erp, I suggested replacing some of her fruit with ???safe starches??? like potatoes, and replacing her PUFA-containing nuts with low-PUFA macadamia nuts or other foods.



An example source supporting whole fruit and fructose is not fattening.

How Bad is Fructose?

Eating whole, fresh fruit should not have the same effect because it doesn't lead to overconsumption in the context of a normal mixed diet.

** If fructose is fattening due to its ability to become fat, then dietary fat should be even more fattening because it doesn't have to undergo an inefficient conversion process-- it's already fat.

68294383ced9a0eafc16133aa80d1905

(5795)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:26 PM

Most of the time, when people are discussing the evils of Fructose, they are referring to HFCS, dried fruit and other concentrated sources. Yes, whole fruit sometimes gets lumped in, and rightfully so if you're talking about "bred-for-sweetness, pesticide-laden and oversized" whole fruit. The problem is, those following conventional "eat more FRUITS and vegetables" tend to 1) go for those over green leafy veg and 2) are rarely paying attention to quality and sourcing. If someone is eating organic, normal-sized fruit, I'd venture to say they likely aren't going to become obese by doing so.

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 22, 2012
at 04:09 PM

thanks MarkES!!

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:39 PM

good comment thanks KA24!

Cbdc8318738324492f2d5918868ce4c9

(1211)

on October 22, 2012
at 01:05 PM

Amber, to help answer your original question, I added an example weight loss recommendation to lower fruit intake due to its fructose being considered a toxin. This example doesn't mean eliminate fruit, but rather "watch our fruit intake", as you put it. I also added an example supporting whole fruits. I can see how it can be confusing.

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:17 PM

interesting. So again I see that the problem is that in most people it stimulates overeating, not so much because the evil fructose makes you fat. Because I too think most of those studies are done not so much on whole fruits :/ thanks for your comment!!

2
9a5e2da94ad63ea3186dfa494e16a8d1

on October 21, 2012
at 09:49 PM

When I first started losing weight, I had to stay to less than 50g carbs per day, and it was best at around 25g. One banana has about 20-25g so it wasn't possible to eat much fruit without blowing my carb "budget".

However, the Paleo diet isn't necessarily low-carb, and there are lots of primitive cultures that eat plenty of starch and extremely sweet and sugary fruits. For me personally any starch or sugar messes up my system, so YMMV.

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 21, 2012
at 10:04 PM

Low carb intrigues me too, and I wonder what the science behind that is as well. I believe it falls along the same lines as staying away from fruit, but it still perplexes me why that would be an issue if in a deficient with a diet that involves those things. Are you still low carb now? Thank you for sharing!!

2
2e1591c76896828077b930de5107f1af

on October 21, 2012
at 07:41 PM

you can loose weight eating fruit. i find that fruit makes me hungry, therefore i find it harder to create a deficit.

C23148e16a4dd05351d1902a69097d65

(748)

on October 21, 2012
at 08:31 PM

see I totally understand that, but where I get confused is when people say the fructose is stopping the weight loss, not so much the calories :/

1
44349dd8bf3bc226731d2f6bd42e8124

(318)

on October 22, 2012
at 01:35 PM

Don't believe the hype. I have lost 45 lbs by eating fruit EVERY.SINGLE.DAY. I have strawberries & blueberries, sometimes an apple. I know that everyone has different reactions to different foods, but you need to find what works for you. Fruit makes it possible for me to continue in this Paleo journey. It makes me happy and not miss candy. It works for me. To lose weight you have to have a calorie deficit. Period.

61844af1187e745e09bb394cbd28cf23

(11058)

on October 22, 2012
at 02:27 PM

Unless you are eating cups of berries, they produce a relatively low insulin response. The "sometimes" apple will produce a larger one. It doesn't just come down to calories. Hormones have a LOT to do with it.

44349dd8bf3bc226731d2f6bd42e8124

(318)

on October 22, 2012
at 01:36 PM

Oh, forgot to mention over 30 lbs has been lost since August 1. I still have another 70 lbs to lose. But the weight has been falling off with little exercise. All because of the calorie deficit and keeping my carbs at an optimum level (around 40/day) for me.

1
0a9ad4e577fe24a6b8aafa1dd7a50c79

on October 21, 2012
at 07:03 PM

Ketosis, ketosis, ketosis.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on October 21, 2012
at 07:20 PM

Fruit, fruit, fruit.

Answer Question


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