Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unsure about whether I should be including fruit

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

  • Originally posted by breadsauce View Post
    That was very interesting, although I just skimmed it. If that one writer can find all that evidence that counters our Paleo dogma of wild fruit be small and bitter, why haven't the Big Diet Guru's?

    I'd be leary, though, of thinking that Way Back When, in a given region, these fruits were available throughout the year. Africa as a whole, sure. A small area? Not so much.

    As noted, for me, fruit just explodes my blood sugar. And waistline.

    Comment


    • Speaking of testing to determine safety - all GMO foods are tested on animals - for about 6 weeks. One chap kept the same type of tests going for months, and did the generational thing as well. Dr Jonathan Latham at first was all for GMO products for all the advertised benefits. Then he did more research, including the above prolonged animal tests. Now he's against them for all the fraud and chicanery n the listed test results. That's what happens when the foxes guard the henhouses. Check out Dr. Mercola's website for more info.
      Phase 1 testing is where human trials commence using volunteers for pay. These healthy volunteers are not testing the drugs for efficacy in treating disease - they are only concerned with safety. That's why the French trials of a marijuana knockoff painkiller were so horrendous -killed one man, left 3 others with brain damage, hospitalized 5. I think this test failed with humans, no matter how the animals reacted!

      Comment


      • Fruit is definitely a better option than other foods like candies, cakes, doughnuts etc.. Fruit does contain fructose, and some fruit contains a lot more of it than others like apples. Fructose has been linked to fatty liver and possibly to pancreatic cancer (fructose was shown to cause pancreatic tumors to divide and multiple rapidly).

        This doesn't mean avoid fruit, it means don't make it your primary source of calories, and certainly don't get into a habit of juicing. It's far too easy to get a sugar bomb when you start juicing.

        I've always thought of fruit as being nature's desert. Not meant to be consumed in abundance but more so to round out the sweet tooth when one kicks in.

        Comment


        • I think historically our ancestors probably binged on fruit or honey, if and when it was available and would also go long periods with out it. Today you can get relatively fresh fruit year round, which I would think is not very Paleo like. So I suggest periodizing your diet, eating organic, local and most importantly, seasonal fruit and vegetables primarily during their harvest season. If you feel the need to eat fruits throughout the year you could periodize throughout the month, for example go 5 days VLC focusing on meat, fish and poultry then change it up and go fairly high carb on the weekend eating a lot of vegetables and fruits.

          http://breakingmuscle.com/nutrition/...-to-overeating
          Last edited by canuck416; 01-19-2016, 02:00 PM.
          Recent Blog: http://www.peakperformanceradio.net/...y-john-saville

          https://www.facebook.com/PaleoJourne...?ref=bookmarks

          Comment


          • Originally posted by WestCoastFire View Post
            Fruit is definitely a better option than other foods like candies, cakes, doughnuts etc.. Fruit does contain fructose, and some fruit contains a lot more of it than others like apples. Fructose has been linked to fatty liver and possibly to pancreatic cancer (fructose was shown to cause pancreatic tumors to divide and multiple rapidly).

            This doesn't mean avoid fruit, it means don't make it your primary source of calories, and certainly don't get into a habit of juicing. It's far too easy to get a sugar bomb when you start juicing.

            I've always thought of fruit as being nature's desert. Not meant to be consumed in abundance but more so to round out the sweet tooth when one kicks in.
            I think that's a very logical, reasonable middle of the road philosophy.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Paysan View Post
              Speaking of testing to determine safety - all GMO foods are tested on animals - for about 6 weeks. One chap kept the same type of tests going for months, and did the generational thing as well. Dr Jonathan Latham at first was all for GMO products for all the advertised benefits. Then he did more research, including the above prolonged animal tests. Now he's against them for all the fraud and chicanery n the listed test results. That's what happens when the foxes guard the henhouses. Check out Dr. Mercola's website for more info.
              Phase 1 testing is where human trials commence using volunteers for pay. These healthy volunteers are not testing the drugs for efficacy in treating disease - they are only concerned with safety. That's why the French trials of a marijuana knockoff painkiller were so horrendous -killed one man, left 3 others with brain damage, hospitalized 5. I think this test failed with humans, no matter how the animals reacted!
              Without citations, this is just hearsay, sorry to say. In the opposite direction of "Trust us, we wouldn't lie to you."

              Yes, we use humans for trials. We know that GMO's are knocking us out as we are consuming plenty of them. But to set up a long term, double blind, well done study is virtually impossible. But we could see how the rats do after many generations. May or may not have unexpected results.

              Comment


              • Paysan's Dr. Latham has a nice position statement at https://www.independentsciencenews.o...ience-of-gmos/. He's not "anti-gm", he just thinks the testing is not handled right, is inadequate in time, and could result in significant problems.
                My 2 cents: Testing for 90 days on rats and then declaring something is safe seems inadequate. I would love to see good multi-generational studies on rats, done under good conditions and well controlled. To my knowledge the Seralina study, originally published in 2012, retracted by the publisher sometime later, and then reissued by a minor journal is the only one around. See http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentin...ist-reactions/. It found there were problems with gm foods, but has been severely criticized on a number of fronts.

                In the meantime, I think the case for or against gm foods in not proven, either way. So in the realm of "what do you do?" I'd say that the Precautionary Principle dictates that until proven safe over 3-6 generations, avoid 'em as best you can.

                I would also guess that if you are a researcher looking for funding, you aren't going to find many takers if you say you are wanting to do a multi-generational study on gmo effects. The big funding money is all on the side of the gm producers, their vested interest is on the side where the shorter the testing interval, the more likely no adverse effects will be seen.
                The Buck stops here. I am responsible for my past and my future. So for today: I choose to be happy. I will seek wisdom. I will be a servant to others. I will greet this day with a forgiving spirit.

                Comment

                Working...
                X