Very high fruit consumption, does it lead to diabetes?
There's no studies done on this but some studies show high fruit and vegetable consumption lowers risk of diabetes (A Prospective Study of Fruit and Vegetable Intake and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in Women).
I noticed that if I eat half a tub of ice cream (80g of sugar, 1000 calories), I feel a sugar rush and fall asleep. However, I feel perfect if I eat a whole watermelon (280g of sugar, 1300 calories).
Since both cause a high insulin response, I'm wondering if there's some other bio mechanism in which diabetes is caused by artificial food and not real food that contain sugar (except grains, starches). Do fruitarians have high rate of diabetes/obesity?
Last edited by mwok86; 06-19-2011 at 09:02 PM.
This is a good question, hopefully someone responds. I hate the reputation fruit gets around here, it's like people think it's evil. I think it's perfectly fine whether or not you are trying to lose weight.
Isn't watermelon primarily fructose? Fructose does not cause a spike in glucose levels.
Originally Posted by mwok86
Watermelon has a GI of around 72 (http://www.carbs-information.com/gly...ermelon-gi.htm). That would have to make it mostly glucose as it's GI is considerably higher than soda (which is in the 50's with HFCS). Mark lists watermelon as an "occasional indulgence" in terms of fruit due to its very high GI and overall sugar content.
Interestingly enough is the glycemic load, which is much more important than the GI. The glycemic load of watermelon is a lowly 4 (http://www.carbs-information.com/gly...watermelon.htm). Compare this to a sweet potato, with a GI of 61 (http://www.carbs-information.com/gly...t-potatoes.htm). While the GI of a sweet potato is lower than watermelon, the GL is a 17 (http://www.carbs-information.com/gly...t-potatoes.htm). That's much higher, so if we go by the glycemic load theory, you would have to severely overeat watermelon - even with its high GI - to get a large glycemic load.
That being said, I'm guessing the GL of 280g of sugar worth of watermelon is lower than the 80g found in the ice cream.
Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 06-19-2011 at 09:52 PM.
I think the glycemic load of 4 is for a single serving (1/16th) of watermelon. Since I ate the whole watermelon, it's probably much higher than ice cream. There is probably a difference in artificial fructose and real fructose (same as artificial trans fat and real trans fat).
GL = (GI x the amount of available carbohydrate) divided by 100
Watermelon GL = 72 x 341 / 100 = glycemic load of 245
Ice cream GL = 61 x 152 / 100 = glycemic load of 92
yet I felt no effects from eating a whole watermelon (infact, I ate it several times this week).
Last edited by mwok86; 06-19-2011 at 10:12 PM.
Where did you get those numbers from? According to Wikipedia, watermelon has 30kcal per 100g, of which 7.55g is carbs and 6.2g is sugar. To reach 280g of sugar you'd have to eat a 4.5kg (~10lbs) melon. Is that what you ate? If so, I'd suggest reducing portion sizes significantly.
Originally Posted by mwok86
Hrm. I don't know what the deal is with the watermelon fetish floating around the boards lately, but at least as far as the sleepy part goes, Ice Cream can contain a fair amount of tryptophan . . . But if you feel fine eating whole watermelons - hell - go for it. If it doesn't mess you up and you don't notice that you're losing headway in your goals. Eat the watermelon.
Everyone is at a different place in their journey and everyone has different goals. And in the end only you can determine if your goals are being met.
That said, the video linked above - The Bitter Truth - is well worth watching if you have questions about how Fructose affects you on a cellular level. And what affects you on a cellular level will eventually start affecting your day to day life. What *feels great* now might come back to bite you on the bum in years to come.
This is way off.
Originally Posted by Einz
The reason for avoiding it is fructose and it applies to people differently depending on blood chemistry (insulin resistance). People trying to lose would be foolish to do it by eating fruit. Many people, most probably, are still trying to undo years of damage from the SAD and need to avoid it.
If your weight is perfect and your blood tests are spot on, some fruit won't hurt. I doubt it will actually improve things.
Beware of CW studies. They will say anything, and say the opposite a week later. That is why we hear the term "correlation is not causation."
People have not been eating SAD. This is a myth (even Dean ornish acknowledges this). SAD does not make the distinction between real food and junk food. Therefore, people think ice cream (as long as it meets the SAD macronutrient guidelines) is healthy (especially with low fat and heart healthy labels). It's the same result you would get with Primal if you eat "primal junk food".
Originally Posted by DFH
If you have screwed up your metabolism by eating junk food, you probably need to fix it first before eating fruits.
If you have the correct metabolism, you can eat fruits. Remember, at first, they said there is absolutely no difference between artificial trans fat and real trans fat...it took decades to find out there was a difference. Maybe it's the same with artificial fructose and real fructose.
Real fructose in fruits are absorbed less. I think Lustig even says that if you consume a large amount of fruits, only 15mg of fructose is absorbed. Meanwhile, artificial fructose, all of it is absorbed....so there is clearly a difference.
Paleo man ate a lot of fruits. Fruits were everywhere (the vegetation is very different from today).
Also, how come fruitarians eat very large amounts of fruit without diabetes? It's not like after eating they immediately go exercise to burn it off. So each meal results in very high insulin. They should be obese and diabetic...but they are not.
Westen price's studies show people are a wide variety of foods from grains, milk, meat, fat etc. They were all healthy except in the case where they cut out one macronutrient (Inuits).
Last edited by mwok86; 06-20-2011 at 09:24 AM.