Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Healthy fruits - Fructose content edition

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Healthy fruits - Fructose content edition

    I have just posted an analysis on the fructose content of various fruits on my blog

    Healthy fruits Fructose content edition | Thor Falk

    For those who have not read the Blueprint: fructose can only be metabolised in the liver (and can damage it in the long run) so everything else being equal, a lower fructose content (both absolute and relative to glucose and other carbs) is better than a higher one.
    http://thorfalk.wordpress.com

  • #2
    Neat. Good for reference if I need that.

    Although how are figs 121% fructose?

    I dunno what it is about fructose but it just doesn't jive with me in large quantities. I don't really gain weight but I never quite feel right with more fructose. Perhaps fructose metabolism problems seeing as I'm a glow-in-the-dark whitey. Tubers are definitely the better carb source for me.
    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

    Comment


    • #3
      Nice idea! :-)

      Well, it won't prevent me from having some dates/prunes wrapped with bacon (traditional tapas). ;-)
      MikeEnRegalia's Blog - Nutrition, Dieting, Exercise and other stuff ;-)

      Comment


      • #4
        Fructose sounds pretty scary, at least in large quantities. I guess the issue is that the response of the liver is not "linear" - in small quantities (a la Grok) it is no problem at all, but from a certain point onward it is just bad...

        As for the 122% - the problem is that the fructose content and the carb content is from different sources, and they might well have looked at slightly different sub-species / crops / whatever. If the fruit used to measure the fructose content contained more (or less) carbs than the one used for the carb content then the ratio will be slightly off...
        http://thorfalk.wordpress.com

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia View Post
          Nice idea! :-)

          Well, it won't prevent me from having some dates/prunes wrapped with bacon (traditional tapas). ;-)
          In the contrary: you see that especially prunes have a very low fructose percentage, so most of it is glucose. The impact of this (ie the glycemic index / load) will be blunted by (a) proteins in the food, (b) fats in the food, and (c) the amount you add. In particularly prunes seem like a good choice under this measure
          http://thorfalk.wordpress.com

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Stabby View Post
            Neat. Good for reference if I need that.

            Although how are figs 121% fructose?

            I dunno what it is about fructose but it just doesn't jive with me in large quantities. I don't really gain weight but I never quite feel right with more fructose. Perhaps fructose metabolism problems seeing as I'm a glow-in-the-dark whitey. Tubers are definitely the better carb source for me.
            Fruit should assume the role of dessert in a primal diet - and if you compare even a bowl of fruit (salad) to a big slice of any type of pie, you're eating *much* less fructose. In any case fruit should not be eaten in quantities that make it a substantial source of carbs.
            MikeEnRegalia's Blog - Nutrition, Dieting, Exercise and other stuff ;-)

            Comment


            • #7
              Cool. Very helpful. Thanks!

              Comment


              • #8
                Thanks Thor Falk. I have a list that is a lot smaller than that one, so this will be the new defacto for me when I need to figure out what I want to eat.
                Glad to see that persimmons aren't as bad as I thought. I just found those suckers when I started PB and I could eat one a day if they weren't so damned expensive.
                People too weak to follow their own dreams will always try to discourage others.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by IcarianVX View Post
                  Thanks Thor Falk. I have a list that is a lot smaller than that one, so this will be the new defacto for me when I need to figure out what I want to eat.
                  Glad to see that persimmons aren't as bad as I thought. I just found those suckers when I started PB and I could eat one a day if they weren't so damned expensive.
                  did you compare notes whether those lists agree? nutrition information is pretty bad generally in my experience
                  http://thorfalk.wordpress.com

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks for sharing.
                    What about Glycemic index, I thought fruits like pineapple, banana and orange rank somewhat higher on that, than do some of the fruits lower on this list (like apples, pears and berries)?
                    How should we incorporate both of these lists?
                    Free book on Self-change (aswell as Paleo articles) at my website: www.identityisdynamic.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Interesting.

                      I don't eat much fruit, but before I would check the glycemic index to see what is high or low as a general guideline.

                      Is this list better? Is the intent to show that picking fruit based on lower fructose makes more sense than, for example, GI?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I keep reading conflicting information about fruit but have kind of worked out for myself that sugar is sugar in whatever form. I now try to see fruits as a treat and avoid dried fruit and juices. I absolutely adore raspberries so thats my treat for the day, heated up and covered with double cream! I think the best thing is to experiment with yourself and see what works. One of my friends is into the old five a day malarky and I tried eating loads of fruit and drinking loads of fruit juice and I put on weight so that doesn't work for me. If I eat oranges I get bad skin as well. Weird.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Edje Noh View Post
                          Thanks for sharing.
                          What about Glycemic index, I thought fruits like pineapple, banana and orange rank somewhat higher on that, than do some of the fruits lower on this list (like apples, pears and berries)?
                          How should we incorporate both of these lists?
                          GI is a bit tricky. Firstly - GI of fructose is low because it needs to be metabolized in the liver first. This is why some companies make rather outrageous claims on the health benefits of agave sirup that is 90% fructose (see Fructose is healthy – says Company X | Thor Falk). So almost by definition, everything bad under the Fructose%Carbs measure will be good under a GI measure (at same level of overall sugars that is). This sounds confusing, but the point is that GI deals with the blood-sugar and insulin response, whilst F%C deals with potential damage to the liver, and those are simply two different things.

                          What this analysis clearly does not consider is availability of the sugars. So arguably the sugar in oranges might go to the blood more quickly because they are more juicy than say apples. On the other hand IMHO the GI is a flawed measure because it is really only valid on a stand-alone basis. You can eat high GI food together with proteins in particular, and its effective GI gets much lower. So if you eat fruit as a dessert and not as a snack then GI tables become rather useless AFAIK.

                          As for berries - all but blueberries are near the good corner anyway. As for blueberries - keep in mind that what counts is serving size x carbs per 100g x F%C, and you need to eat quite a few blueberries to match the weight of an orange. But - assuming the data is correct - it does seem that some of the fruits are not as healthy as we might have thought. This does not mean that you have to stop eating apples though: 100g still only have about 6g of fructose, and I do believe that the impact on the liver is non-linear. So one apple is probably perfectly fine - but one should be careful not to replace lunch with two apples, a big bunch of grapes, and a watermelon juice....
                          http://thorfalk.wordpress.com

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by DFH View Post
                            Interesting.

                            I don't eat much fruit, but before I would check the glycemic index to see what is high or low as a general guideline.

                            Is this list better? Is the intent to show that picking fruit based on lower fructose makes more sense than, for example, GI?
                            I personally believe GI is overrated, in particular because it is strongly impacted by the foods that you consume with the food in question. So stand-alone GI's - which is all you can get - dont really mean very much, and you would really need to experiment with different food combinations and which effect they have on your blood sugar (feasible by the way - the tools are affordable and in daily use with diabetics) rather than using the tables.

                            It is a different view really - one is about direct impact on blood sugar, and the other one is about potential damage to your liver (that might light to insulin resistance, and Type II diabetes). I guess the key take-away is to calculate how much fructose you get from your daily fruits, and limit this to say 50g at the very max, distributed throughout the day
                            http://thorfalk.wordpress.com

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Polecatz View Post
                              I keep reading conflicting information about fruit but have kind of worked out for myself that sugar is sugar in whatever form. I now try to see fruits as a treat and avoid dried fruit and juices. I absolutely adore raspberries so thats my treat for the day, heated up and covered with double cream! I think the best thing is to experiment with yourself and see what works. One of my friends is into the old five a day malarky and I tried eating loads of fruit and drinking loads of fruit juice and I put on weight so that doesn't work for me. If I eat oranges I get bad skin as well. Weird.
                              The only thing is that fructose does not act immediately. In the short term it is healthy and you wont gain weight (as there is only a very small insulin response). The issues only manifest themselves once your liver and subsequently your pancreas becomes damaged (which can take years or decades), at which point a lot of the damage has already been done (ie metabolic syndrome / insuline resistance / Type II diabetes / fatty liver etc)
                              http://thorfalk.wordpress.com

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X