Fruit. Evil, evil fruit. page 3

[activia]

Although it could also happen if you jsut signifcantly cut carbs... your body just craving carbs in general.. but if not, its the fructose thinking for you lol

[JackieKessler]

Although it could also happen if you jsut signifcantly cut carbs... your body just craving carbs in general.. but if not, its the fructose thinking for you lol

Heh. Yeah. "It wasn't me, it was the FRUIT!"

I'll cut fruit out next week and see how I do with it.

Watch. In two weeks, I'll be posting about the evils of red bell peppers. And then we can talk about nightshades.

[Timothy]

Been thinking about fruit in an evolutionary context lately. Fruit was not created for the benefit of humans. It was created for the benefit of the plants, to hijack animals as a seed-dispersal mechanism. And the plants will take advantage of supernormal stimulus if it gets the job done.

So in the very same way that fast food is designed to be more appealing than healthy food, so fruit can also be more appealing than its nutritional content would justify. The plant doesn't care if you go on a blood sugar roller coaster or get the runs. Heck, that might even serve its devious agenda, by causing you to swallow huge amounts of seeds and spew them everywhere.

Not saying all fruit is bad. Just that the plants' reproductive interests do not necessarily coincide with our own.

[ChocoTaco369]

Been thinking about fruit in an evolutionary context lately. Fruit was not created for the benefit of humans. It was created for the benefit of the plants, to hijack animals as a seed-dispersal mechanism. And the plants will take advantage of supernormal stimulus if it gets the job done.

So in the very same way that fast food is designed to be more appealing than healthy food, so fruit can also be more appealing than its nutritional content would justify. The plant doesn't care if you go on a blood sugar roller coaster or get the runs. Heck, that might even serve its devious agenda, by causing you to swallow huge amounts of seeds and spew them everywhere.

Not saying all fruit is bad. Just that the plants' reproductive interests do not necessarily coincide with our own.

But then what about vegetables? Vegetables don't necessarily want you to eat them, yet they're very, very good for you. But grains don't want you to eat them either, and they'll make you pay dearly for it. By this logic, it makes more evolutionary sense for fruit to be better for you than vegetables as fruit wants you to get it more than vegetables want you to. However, this isn't the face and most veggies trump most fruits. Then there's meat, that REALLY doesn't want you to eat it. In fact, it's conscious about it! Things aren't always what they seem. I don't think you can make sense of this and we need to take everything at a case-by-case level.

[Paleobird]

Dr. Kurt Harris at the Archevore site says, "Favor foods that are defenseless when dead." I though that was cute. He is trying to get a philosophy of Paleo 2.0 out there where the evolutionary aspect of why something is or isn't right for us is not the only consideration. Sugar is sugar. It doesn't matter if it comes from a candy bar or a piece of fruit (with fruit being just a tad better due to more fiber and vitamins). But that doesn't negate the sugar.

[Timothy]

But then what about vegetables? Vegetables don't necessarily want you to eat them, yet they're very, very good for you. But grains don't want you to eat them either, and they'll make you pay dearly for it. By this logic, it makes more evolutionary sense for fruit to be better for you than vegetables as fruit wants you to get it more than vegetables want you to. However, this isn't the face and most veggies trump most fruits. Then there's meat, that REALLY doesn't want you to eat it. In fact, it's conscious about it! Things aren't always what they seem. I don't think you can make sense of this and we need to take everything at a case-by-case level.

Oh, I totally agree. Case-by-case is the way to take it. Some fruits live in happy symbiosis with the animals that eat them. But other fruit may be more exploitative.

Most animal and vegetable matter doesn't want to be eaten. Tubers defend themselves by hiding deep underground. Ruminant flesh protects itself by being part of an animal that can run away or gore a predator. Vegetables defend themselves by proliferating beyond grazers' ability to eat them all. Because those tissues developed non-toxic defenses, once they're in your belly, you're good to go.

Only some tissues were forced to develop toxic defenses for lack of anything better. Grains obviously, but also poison frogs and insects, certain mushrooms, and certain berries that can only be tolerated by the plant's preferred animal (birds usually, probably because of their ability to disperse the seeds more broadly).

So all I'm saying is, when you eat something, understand its adaptations so you know you've circumvented its defenses. And be mindful that in the case of fruit, the plant may prefer for you to eat more than would be nutritionally optimal for you.

We could hypothesize that fruits that go bad quickly (e.g., tropical soft-skinned fruits) have more incentive to get you to gorge than fruits that can hang around for a long time (e.g., antioxidant-packed berries in a cool climate).

EDIT: Paleobird quoted: "Favor foods that are defenseless when dead." That says it all so much more succinctly.

[ChocoTaco369]

Dr. Kurt Harris at the Archevore site says, "Favor foods that are defenseless when dead." I though that was cute. He is trying to get a philosophy of Paleo 2.0 out there where the evolutionary aspect of why something is or isn't right for us is not the only consideration. Sugar is sugar. It doesn't matter if it comes from a candy bar or a piece of fruit (with fruit being just a tad better due to more fiber and vitamins). But that doesn't negate the sugar.

I disagree. Whole foods often contain enzymes that better aid the digestion of the food that the isolated components do not. Fruit isn't a bag of sugar, and your body handles fruit differently than sugar. 25g of carbs from an apple will digest differently than 25g of carbs from white sugar, even if the fructose/glucose ratio is similar. Honey illustrates this best of all. Cheap, boiled, clear store-bought honey has been shown to elevate triglycerides similarly to HFCS, but raw honey does not. Even though raw honey has the same carb content as typical honey-bear honey, the effect on the body is remarkably different because boiling it destroys the natural enzymes that help aid its assimilation in the body. The same thing goes for oils. There's a big difference between eating fish and taking fish oil, and there's a big difference between eating flaxseeds and eating flaxseed oil. Hell, same thing goes for peanuts and peanut oil, walnuts and walnut oil...the whole food is almost always superior.

[Paleobird]

I disagree. Whole foods often contain enzymes that better aid the digestion of the food that the isolated components do not. Fruit isn't a bag of sugar, and your body handles fruit differently than sugar. 25g of carbs from an apple will digest differently than 25g of carbs from white sugar, even if the fructose/glucose ratio is similar. Honey illustrates this best of all. Cheap, boiled, clear store-bought honey has been shown to elevate triglycerides similarly to HFCS, but raw honey does not. Even though raw honey has the same carb content as typical honey-bear honey, the effect on the body is remarkably different because boiling it destroys the natural enzymes that help aid its assimilation in the body. The same thing goes for oils. There's a big difference between eating fish and taking fish oil, and there's a big difference between eating flaxseeds and eating flaxseed oil. Hell, same thing goes for peanuts and peanut oil, walnuts and walnut oil...the whole food is almost always superior.

Re-read my post. I said that the fruit was marginally better. That does not mean that stuffing yourself on peaches is good for you.

[sakura_girl]

I disagree. Whole foods often contain enzymes that better aid the digestion of the food that the isolated components do not. Fruit isn't a bag of sugar, and your body handles fruit differently than sugar. 25g of carbs from an apple will digest differently than 25g of carbs from white sugar, even if the fructose/glucose ratio is similar. Honey illustrates this best of all. Cheap, boiled, clear store-bought honey has been shown to elevate triglycerides similarly to HFCS, but raw honey does not. Even though raw honey has the same carb content as typical honey-bear honey, the effect on the body is remarkably different because boiling it destroys the natural enzymes that help aid its assimilation in the body. The same thing goes for oils. There's a big difference between eating fish and taking fish oil, and there's a big difference between eating flaxseeds and eating flaxseed oil. Hell, same thing goes for peanuts and peanut oil, walnuts and walnut oil...the whole food is almost always superior.

Wow, that's great to know, since I recently purchased a bunch of raw honey and went crazy over it last night (several T, but it gave me a stomachache XD) I just try to cut out carbs in general on most days, and then every once in a while eat fruit or sweeter chocolate varieties to help elevate leptin levels. But I tend to binge big time if I eat large amounts of carbs at once.

[ChocoTaco369]

Re-read my post. I said that the fruit was marginally better. That does not mean that stuffing yourself on peaches is good for you.

I think it's much more than marginally. That's still not fair. White sugar vs apples or bananas is not a fair comparison, even marginally.

Wow, that's great to know, since I recently purchased a bunch of raw honey and went crazy over it last night (several T, but it gave me a stomachache XD) I just try to cut out carbs in general on most days, and then every once in a while eat fruit or sweeter chocolate varieties to help elevate leptin levels. But I tend to binge big time if I eat large amounts of carbs at once.

While raw honey may not be detrimental to your health, it isn't exactly nutritious, and it still sends your blood sugar soaring. You're best off not using it, but if you must use a sweetener, it's the best to use. Consuming several tablespoons of any sweetener in one sitting is never a good idea. Ever.