Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Healthy fruits - Fructose content edition page

  1. #1
    Thor Falk's Avatar
    Thor Falk is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    338

    Post Healthy fruits - Fructose content edition

    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    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.

  2. #2
    Stabby's Avatar
    Stabby is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Stabsville
    Posts
    2,462
    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!

  3. #3
    MikeEnRegalia's Avatar
    MikeEnRegalia is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Germany (near Nuremberg)
    Posts
    825
    Nice idea! :-)

    Well, it won't prevent me from having some dates/prunes wrapped with bacon (traditional tapas). ;-)

  4. #4
    Thor Falk's Avatar
    Thor Falk is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    338
    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...

  5. #5
    Thor Falk's Avatar
    Thor Falk is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    338
    Quote 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

  6. #6
    MikeEnRegalia's Avatar
    MikeEnRegalia is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Germany (near Nuremberg)
    Posts
    825
    Quote 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.

  7. #7
    OneDeltaTenTango's Avatar
    OneDeltaTenTango is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    907
    Cool. Very helpful. Thanks!

  8. #8
    IcarianVX's Avatar
    IcarianVX is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    1,275
    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.

  9. #9
    Thor Falk's Avatar
    Thor Falk is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    338
    Quote 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

  10. #10
    Edje Noh's Avatar
    Edje Noh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    284
    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?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •