5 ms·

The whole video is about how fructose is toxic. Many, many plants are rich in fructose. It's not as simple as "eat plants." A modern variety apple or orange

The whole video is about how fructose is toxic. Many, many plants are rich in fructose. It's not as simple as "eat plants." A modern variety apple or orange is a blast of fructose. It's also perfectly healthy to eat predominantly meat, organs, and dairy if the animals are properly pastured. So the "mostly plants" claim makes little sense without a lot of qualification.

ericd 17y ago
He says that fiber mitigates the fructose in fruit. It's when it's separated from the fiber as juice that it becomes a problem.
- kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
  The fiber does not compensate for the high levels of fructose in modern fruits. Modern varieties are much sweeter than they were even thirty years ago. Modern seedless grapes are basically candy.
  - blueben 17y ago
    "The fiber does not compensate for the high levels of fructose in modern fruits." Why not?
scotty79 17y ago
'Mostly plants' refers to the only piece of diet world that has been proven by science. If you eat more plants you have lower risk of many severe diseases. That's all we know about diet for sure. The rest is guesswork and wishful thinking.
- kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
  I assure you "mostly plants" has no scientific backing. There are plenty of randomized intervention studies introducing more fruit and vegetables into diet and they all show a null result. Well controlled studies within populations also do not show any longevity advantage to eating more vegetables.
  - scotty79 17y ago
    To my knowledge there were numerous studies confirming that eating plants often lowers risk of diseases such as cancer. Maybe you can achieve similar effect with some other precise diet but eating mostly plants is the easiest way to improving your health and lower you calories intake.
    - kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
      Go try and find a randomized intervention where more vegetables improved health. Many have tried, all have failed.
      - scotty79 17y ago
        I'm sorry. I don't really care enough about eating to do a research on it. I just cited advice I've seen lately because It was just as verbose as in my opinion it should be and was in line with the things I've read earlier.
      - dingle 17y ago
        These studies aren't randomized interventions, but I think it's a bit of a simplification to say that all have failed. "Dietary and lifestyle determinants of mortality among German vegetarians" found that "A longer duration of vegetarianism (> or = 20 years) was associated with a lower risk, pointing to a real protective effect of this lifestyle" "Vegetables, fruit, and cancer prevention: a review" states that "the evidence for a protective effect of greater vegetable and fruit consumption is consistent for cancers of the stomach, esophagus, lung, oral cavity and pharynx, endometrium, pancreas, and colon. The types of vegetables or fruit that most often appear to be protective against cancer are raw vegetables, followed by allium vegetables, carrots, green vegetables, cruciferous vegetables, and tomatoes" "Nutrients and food groups and large bowel cancer in Europe" found that "most vegetables, including pulses, were inversely associated with cancer of the colon and rectum."

ericd 17y ago

He says that fiber mitigates the fructose in fruit. It's when it's separated from the fiber as juice that it becomes a problem.

kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
The fiber does not compensate for the high levels of fructose in modern fruits. Modern varieties are much sweeter than they were even thirty years ago. Modern seedless grapes are basically candy.
- blueben 17y ago
  "The fiber does not compensate for the high levels of fructose in modern fruits." Why not?

scotty79 17y ago

'Mostly plants' refers to the only piece of diet world that has been proven by science. If you eat more plants you have lower risk of many severe diseases. That's all we know about diet for sure. The rest is guesswork and wishful thinking.

kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
I assure you "mostly plants" has no scientific backing. There are plenty of randomized intervention studies introducing more fruit and vegetables into diet and they all show a null result. Well controlled studies within populations also do not show any longevity advantage to eating more vegetables.
- scotty79 17y ago
  To my knowledge there were numerous studies confirming that eating plants often lowers risk of diseases such as cancer. Maybe you can achieve similar effect with some other precise diet but eating mostly plants is the easiest way to improving your health and lower you calories intake.
  - kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
    Go try and find a randomized intervention where more vegetables improved health. Many have tried, all have failed.
    - scotty79 17y ago
      I'm sorry. I don't really care enough about eating to do a research on it. I just cited advice I've seen lately because It was just as verbose as in my opinion it should be and was in line with the things I've read earlier.
    - dingle 17y ago
      These studies aren't randomized interventions, but I think it's a bit of a simplification to say that all have failed. "Dietary and lifestyle determinants of mortality among German vegetarians" found that "A longer duration of vegetarianism (> or = 20 years) was associated with a lower risk, pointing to a real protective effect of this lifestyle" "Vegetables, fruit, and cancer prevention: a review" states that "the evidence for a protective effect of greater vegetable and fruit consumption is consistent for cancers of the stomach, esophagus, lung, oral cavity and pharynx, endometrium, pancreas, and colon. The types of vegetables or fruit that most often appear to be protective against cancer are raw vegetables, followed by allium vegetables, carrots, green vegetables, cruciferous vegetables, and tomatoes" "Nutrients and food groups and large bowel cancer in Europe" found that "most vegetables, including pulses, were inversely associated with cancer of the colon and rectum."