3 ms·

> Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat. Can you be precise about what you mean by this, or at lea

> Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat. Can you be precise about what you mean by this, or at least qualify this statement? Modern fruit obviously pushes the definition of "natural" to it's absolute limits, but more importantly, it's at least deeply unintuitive that something that consists mostly of fructose, a little fiber, trace metals, the rare vitamin, and next to no protein or fat could be considered healthy.

shlant 9y ago
Yet another poster on HN, just echoing the platitudes of keto/paleo... > Modern fruit obviously pushes the definition of "natural" to it's absolute limits Modern fruit is not much different nutritionally from wild fruit[1]. Sure, some ancient fruit like bananas were pretty inedible, but that is a far cry from what keto/paleo dogma suggests. As an anecdote, I am living in Borneo right now, and we can go out into the jungles of some of the most untouched land in the world and find the sweetest fruits we have ever tasted. > it's at least deeply unintuitive that something that consists mostly of fructose, a little fiber, trace metals, the rare vitamin I think by "deeply unintuitive" you mean "when compared to my beliefs". Fruit is some of the most nutritionally dense and healthy foods you can eat (I don't think I need to source this, but will if you refuse to yourself). HIGH in fibre, vitamins, phytonutrients, antioxidants, enzymes etc. > and next to no protein or fat could be considered healthy. And here again you reveal your beliefs/dogma. The MACROnutrient content of a food tells you nothing about how healthy it is. 1. https://deniseminger.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/ https://deniseminger.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/
- pharrington 9y ago
  Do not put words into my mouth. I said nothing about keto/paleo. (If you are curious about my thoughts about those diets, KozmoNau7 elsewhere in this thread has said most of the relevant information) Fruit, the reproductive organ of a plant, is commonly available in markets without seeds. But again, this truth is tangential to the important claims about what is actually in specific foods. Provide your sources. Before my original post, I bing searched for "apple nutrients," "orange nutrients," and "banana nutrients." I choose these three fruits because they are the most commonly available where I live. Yes, I certainly accept that foods in ecosystems foreign to mine have different nutrient profiles than the fruits I'm familiar with, and if you're in a region where there grows a fruit with a nutrient profile similar to, for example, spinach, then you have access to some healthy fruit! However, I assume most people in the "Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?" thread are Americans or interested in American dietary habits. If you're literally saying the specific nutrient content of a food tells you nothing about how well the food contributes to maintaining vital processes, then we have a breakdown in language. If it clears things up at all, I'm using Wikipedia definition of "nutrient."
  - shlant 9y ago
    > Do not put words into my mouth. I said nothing about keto/paleo. My apologies. Although your points are very much in line with those lifestyles and the beliefs of their proponents, that of course doesn't mean you subscribe to them. > Before my original post, I bing searched for "apple nutrients," "orange nutrients," and "banana nutrients." I'm not sure how to address this paragraph. Did you learn that those fruits are low in nutrients? Or are you saying that fruits that are more local to you are not nutritious? I'm not sure where exactly you live or how local we are talking so I can't comment, but those three fruits you mentioned are certainly nutritious regardless of whether they have seeds or are local. > If you're literally saying the specific nutrient content of a food tells you nothing about how well the food contributes to maintaining vital processes, then we have a breakdown in language. If it clears things up at all, I'm using Wikipedia definition of "nutrient." If you read what I said, it was "MACROnutrient" (protein/fat/carb). You cannot tell how nutritious a food is by the MACROnutrient content alone, you have to at least look at the MICROnutients (vitamins + minerals). This is why when a diet suggests that an entire MACROnutrient is "bad", it is totally misunderstanding nutrition.
liveoneggs 9y ago
monkeys eat 70%+ fruit and then a mix of bugs, worms, and seeds for proteins to make up the rest. Do you want gorilla strength or not? :)

shlant 9y ago

Yet another poster on HN, just echoing the platitudes of keto/paleo... > Modern fruit obviously pushes the definition of "natural" to it's absolute limits Modern fruit is not much different nutritionally from wild fruit[1]. Sure, some ancient fruit like bananas were pretty inedible, but that is a far cry from what keto/paleo dogma suggests. As an anecdote, I am living in Borneo right now, and we can go out into the jungles of some of the most untouched land in the world and find the sweetest fruits we have ever tasted. > it's at least deeply unintuitive that something that consists mostly of fructose, a little fiber, trace metals, the rare vitamin I think by "deeply unintuitive" you mean "when compared to my beliefs". Fruit is some of the most nutritionally dense and healthy foods you can eat (I don't think I need to source this, but will if you refuse to yourself). HIGH in fibre, vitamins, phytonutrients, antioxidants, enzymes etc. > and next to no protein or fat could be considered healthy. And here again you reveal your beliefs/dogma. The MACROnutrient content of a food tells you nothing about how healthy it is. 1. https://deniseminger.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/ https://deniseminger.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/

pharrington 9y ago
Do not put words into my mouth. I said nothing about keto/paleo. (If you are curious about my thoughts about those diets, KozmoNau7 elsewhere in this thread has said most of the relevant information) Fruit, the reproductive organ of a plant, is commonly available in markets without seeds. But again, this truth is tangential to the important claims about what is actually in specific foods. Provide your sources. Before my original post, I bing searched for "apple nutrients," "orange nutrients," and "banana nutrients." I choose these three fruits because they are the most commonly available where I live. Yes, I certainly accept that foods in ecosystems foreign to mine have different nutrient profiles than the fruits I'm familiar with, and if you're in a region where there grows a fruit with a nutrient profile similar to, for example, spinach, then you have access to some healthy fruit! However, I assume most people in the "Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?" thread are Americans or interested in American dietary habits. If you're literally saying the specific nutrient content of a food tells you nothing about how well the food contributes to maintaining vital processes, then we have a breakdown in language. If it clears things up at all, I'm using Wikipedia definition of "nutrient."
- shlant 9y ago
  > Do not put words into my mouth. I said nothing about keto/paleo. My apologies. Although your points are very much in line with those lifestyles and the beliefs of their proponents, that of course doesn't mean you subscribe to them. > Before my original post, I bing searched for "apple nutrients," "orange nutrients," and "banana nutrients." I'm not sure how to address this paragraph. Did you learn that those fruits are low in nutrients? Or are you saying that fruits that are more local to you are not nutritious? I'm not sure where exactly you live or how local we are talking so I can't comment, but those three fruits you mentioned are certainly nutritious regardless of whether they have seeds or are local. > If you're literally saying the specific nutrient content of a food tells you nothing about how well the food contributes to maintaining vital processes, then we have a breakdown in language. If it clears things up at all, I'm using Wikipedia definition of "nutrient." If you read what I said, it was "MACROnutrient" (protein/fat/carb). You cannot tell how nutritious a food is by the MACROnutrient content alone, you have to at least look at the MICROnutients (vitamins + minerals). This is why when a diet suggests that an entire MACROnutrient is "bad", it is totally misunderstanding nutrition.

liveoneggs 9y ago

monkeys eat 70%+ fruit and then a mix of bugs, worms, and seeds for proteins to make up the rest. Do you want gorilla strength or not? :)