5 ms·

The Harvard School of Public Health released some comments about this soon after: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2017/09/08/pure-study-makes-headl

The Harvard School of Public Health released some comments about this soon after: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2017/09/08/pure-study-makes-headlines-but-the-conclusions-are-misleading/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2017/09/08/pure...

austinjp 5y ago
Indeed. Probably the most pertinent quote is this: "The main messages for nutritional advice have not changed: follow a healthy dietary pattern that includes abundant amounts of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, and nuts; moderate amounts of reduced-fat dairy products and seafood; and lower amounts of processed and red meat, sugar-sweetened foods and beverages, and refined grains."
- qeternity 5y ago
  Metabolically, fruit is not very different from “sugar sweetened foods and beverages” (and imho gram for gram, fructose is worse than sucrose). The same goes for whole grains. Fat is the most calorie dense nutrient. The human race has spent a majority of its time just trying to stay alive. Up until very recently, this meant eating substantial quantities of fat, and specifically animal fat. Harvard Medical is part of the problem. People stop getting published if you’re contra-establishment, which means you stop getting juicy grants and donations.
  - Baloo 5y ago
    From what I've read though, the sugar content in fruit isn't metabolised in the same way as say a bar of chocolate.
    - qeternity 5y ago
      This is why I said it was worse. I’m being downvoted by people who don’t actually know the science. Fructose must be metabolized by the liver, whereas glucose can be metabolized directly in skeletal muscles as glycogen.
      - commoner 5y ago
        People are disagreeing with you because you claimed, without evidence, that eating fruits and whole grains is similar to consuming sugar-sweetened foods and beverages.
      - Baloo 5y ago
        Fructose in fruit is trapped in the fibrous flesh and takes longer to digest. As it progresses through your system, a good portion is consumed by the gut microbiota so it doesn't have the same impact on your body. Processed food using high fructose corn syrup, is not going to be digested in the same way as an apple.
        qeternity 5y ago
        A good portion? How much? What impact on the body are you referring to? How is the digestion different? I would love to engage, but I have nothing to engage with. Yes, fiber impacts digestion, which has nothing to do with metabolic pathways. But even such, high sugar fruits have similar GIs to HFCS...the digestive impact of fiber is relatively small (compared to fats and amino acids, especially non glucogenic).
        Baloo 5y ago
        The team, from the University of Hohenheim, Germany, analysed the microbiota composition of 12 healthy females following consecutively different high-fructose diets, first a fruit diet (100 g/day fructose from fruit and vegetables) and then, after a low-fructose phase, a high fructose syrup (HFS) diet (100 g/day fructose from syrup) and characterised the responses of bacterial communities after the different dietary interventions. The report concludes that a high-intake of fructose syrup causes a reduction of beneficial butyrate producing bacteria and a gut microbiota profile that may affect unfavourably host lipid metabolism, whereas high consumption of fructose from fruit seems to modulate the composition of the gut microbiota in a beneficial way supporting digestive health and counteracting harmful effects of excessive fructose. Besides a high fructose content, the authors note that the high fruit diet was characterised by a relatively high content of fiber. They therefore point out that observed alterations in gut microbiota may at least partially reflect changes driven by a higher intake of fiber rather than changes in response to the high-fructose consumption. Fibre is an important component of the human diet and has known health benefits including lowering cholesterol and improving blood glucose responses. Dietary fibre as a prebiotic has specific effects on the microbial populations and its function as individual taxa have been shown to selectively metabolise discrete fibre structures. To me, although I don't really know a lot, it seems quite logical that fruit is generally good for you and quite hard to overeat. We've been consuming fruits for thousands of years and although agriculture may have increased availability and nutritional value, comparing 10g of fructose found in an apple to 10g of fructose found in candy is nonsensical.
  - commoner 5y ago
    > Metabolically, fruit is not very different from “sugar sweetened foods and beverages” (and imho gram for gram, fructose is worse than sucrose). The same goes for whole grains. Most fruits* and whole grains have higher fiber content, higher nutrient density, and lower glycemic indexes than sodas and junk foods that are high in added sugar. There is strong evidence that high added sugar (including added fructose) consumption contributes to health issues like obesity and type 2 diabetes, but no evidence that fruits and whole grains in general are unhealthy for most people. * Excluding fruit juices
    - qeternity 5y ago
      > Most fruits* and whole grains have higher fiber content True > higher nutrient density False (this is the problem with processed foods - they are dense and people eat too much) > and lower glycemic indexes True, but ignores a whole host of other considerations such as metabolic pathways. > There is strong evidence that high added sugar (including added fructose) consumption contributes to health issues like obesity and type 2 diabetes, but no evidence that fruits and whole grains in general are unhealthy for most people. False. There is evidence that people eat far too much, full stop. And much of that excess comes from cheap refined carbs. This is a socioeconomic observation and not a metabolic one. You are confusing correlation and causation. It’s comments like these that are the reason we have such horrible nutritional advice. My comment was about how sources of carbohydrates (and all food for that matter) are more similar than dissimilar: drinking a soda and taking a multivitamin is metabolically not much different from eating fruit. That doesn’t mean people should drink soda instead of fruit, but it does mean people should consume less of both. You are better off having some vegetables, nuts or animal fats/proteins. Fruit isn’t healthy just because it’s natural.
      - commoner 5y ago
        Nutrient density is not a measure of calories per mass or volume (energy density). This is what nutrient density means in the context of nutritional science:[1] > The nutrient density standard, as defined by the FDA, is the ratio of the amount of beneficial nutrients relative to the food’s energy content per reference amount customarily consumed. The more nutrient-dense foods are those that contribute more beneficial nutrients than calories to the overall diet. Fruits and vegetables generally have higher nutrient density than most other food categories:[2] > As expected, we found that fruits and vegetables were nutrient-dense in relation to their energy content. > However, the data unambiguously showed that fruits and vegetables were nutrient-rich in relation to the little energy that they provide. Although fruits and vegetables suffer when assessed on the calories/price ratio, they represent extremely good value when assessed using the nutrient density score and the nutrient to price ratio. Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), the most common source of added sugars, contributes to obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D):[3] > Consumption of SSBs has increased markedly across the globe in recent decades, tracking closely with the growing burdens of obesity. These beverages are currently the largest source of added sugar intake and the top source of daily energy in the US diet. The cumulative evidence from observational studies and experimental trials is sufficient to conclude that regular consumption of SSBs causes excess weight gain and these beverages are unique dietary contributors to obesity and T2D. Compelling evidence indicates that reducing SSBs will have significant impact on the prevalence of obesity and its related diseases, especially T2D. Consuming at least 2 servings of fruit and 3 servings of vegetables per day (excepting fruit juices, starchy vegetables, and potatoes) is associated with lower mortality:[4] > In the 2 prospective cohorts with many repeated measurements of diet and up to 30 years of follow-up, we observed that a higher intake of fruit and vegetables was associated with a lower risk of total mortality and cause-specific mortality in a nonlinear manner. Our analysis in the NHS and the HPFS and in a meta-analysis of 26 prospective cohort studies documented that intake of ≈5 servings of fruits and vegetables daily was associated with the lowest mortality, and higher intake was not associated with additional risk reductions in mortality. The thresholds of risk reduction in mortality were 2 servings daily for fruit intake and 3 servings daily for vegetable intake. Higher intakes of most subgroups of fruit and vegetables were inversely associated with mortality, whereas intakes of starchy vegetables, fruit juices, and potatoes were not associated with mortality. And again, there is no evidence that fruits and whole grains in general are unhealthy in a balanced diet for most people. Eating fruits is not equivalent to combining sodas with multivitamins. Fruits have fiber, antioxidants,[5] and other compounds that are absent from multivitamins. [1] https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/4/721/4607427 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/4/721/4607427 [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7446672_A_Nutrient_Density_Standard_for_Vegetables_and_Fruits_Nutrients_per_Calorie_and_Nutrients_per_Unit_Cost https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7446672_A_Nutrient_... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325726/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325726/ [4] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048996 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.0... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_antioxidants_in_food https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_antioxidants_in_food
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  And is this "healthy dietary pattern" based on good science?
  - nradov 5y ago
    Well there is hardly any "good science" in human nutrition. It's mostly just observational studies with results distorted by the healthy subject effect and other uncontrolled confounding variables.

austinjp 5y ago

Indeed. Probably the most pertinent quote is this: "The main messages for nutritional advice have not changed: follow a healthy dietary pattern that includes abundant amounts of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, and nuts; moderate amounts of reduced-fat dairy products and seafood; and lower amounts of processed and red meat, sugar-sweetened foods and beverages, and refined grains."

qeternity 5y ago
Metabolically, fruit is not very different from “sugar sweetened foods and beverages” (and imho gram for gram, fructose is worse than sucrose). The same goes for whole grains. Fat is the most calorie dense nutrient. The human race has spent a majority of its time just trying to stay alive. Up until very recently, this meant eating substantial quantities of fat, and specifically animal fat. Harvard Medical is part of the problem. People stop getting published if you’re contra-establishment, which means you stop getting juicy grants and donations.
- Baloo 5y ago
  From what I've read though, the sugar content in fruit isn't metabolised in the same way as say a bar of chocolate.
  - qeternity 5y ago
    This is why I said it was worse. I’m being downvoted by people who don’t actually know the science. Fructose must be metabolized by the liver, whereas glucose can be metabolized directly in skeletal muscles as glycogen.
    - commoner 5y ago
      People are disagreeing with you because you claimed, without evidence, that eating fruits and whole grains is similar to consuming sugar-sweetened foods and beverages.
    - Baloo 5y ago
      Fructose in fruit is trapped in the fibrous flesh and takes longer to digest. As it progresses through your system, a good portion is consumed by the gut microbiota so it doesn't have the same impact on your body. Processed food using high fructose corn syrup, is not going to be digested in the same way as an apple.
      - qeternity 5y ago
        A good portion? How much? What impact on the body are you referring to? How is the digestion different? I would love to engage, but I have nothing to engage with. Yes, fiber impacts digestion, which has nothing to do with metabolic pathways. But even such, high sugar fruits have similar GIs to HFCS...the digestive impact of fiber is relatively small (compared to fats and amino acids, especially non glucogenic).
        Baloo 5y ago
        The team, from the University of Hohenheim, Germany, analysed the microbiota composition of 12 healthy females following consecutively different high-fructose diets, first a fruit diet (100 g/day fructose from fruit and vegetables) and then, after a low-fructose phase, a high fructose syrup (HFS) diet (100 g/day fructose from syrup) and characterised the responses of bacterial communities after the different dietary interventions. The report concludes that a high-intake of fructose syrup causes a reduction of beneficial butyrate producing bacteria and a gut microbiota profile that may affect unfavourably host lipid metabolism, whereas high consumption of fructose from fruit seems to modulate the composition of the gut microbiota in a beneficial way supporting digestive health and counteracting harmful effects of excessive fructose. Besides a high fructose content, the authors note that the high fruit diet was characterised by a relatively high content of fiber. They therefore point out that observed alterations in gut microbiota may at least partially reflect changes driven by a higher intake of fiber rather than changes in response to the high-fructose consumption. Fibre is an important component of the human diet and has known health benefits including lowering cholesterol and improving blood glucose responses. Dietary fibre as a prebiotic has specific effects on the microbial populations and its function as individual taxa have been shown to selectively metabolise discrete fibre structures. To me, although I don't really know a lot, it seems quite logical that fruit is generally good for you and quite hard to overeat. We've been consuming fruits for thousands of years and although agriculture may have increased availability and nutritional value, comparing 10g of fructose found in an apple to 10g of fructose found in candy is nonsensical.
- commoner 5y ago
  > Metabolically, fruit is not very different from “sugar sweetened foods and beverages” (and imho gram for gram, fructose is worse than sucrose). The same goes for whole grains. Most fruits* and whole grains have higher fiber content, higher nutrient density, and lower glycemic indexes than sodas and junk foods that are high in added sugar. There is strong evidence that high added sugar (including added fructose) consumption contributes to health issues like obesity and type 2 diabetes, but no evidence that fruits and whole grains in general are unhealthy for most people. * Excluding fruit juices
  - qeternity 5y ago
    > Most fruits* and whole grains have higher fiber content True > higher nutrient density False (this is the problem with processed foods - they are dense and people eat too much) > and lower glycemic indexes True, but ignores a whole host of other considerations such as metabolic pathways. > There is strong evidence that high added sugar (including added fructose) consumption contributes to health issues like obesity and type 2 diabetes, but no evidence that fruits and whole grains in general are unhealthy for most people. False. There is evidence that people eat far too much, full stop. And much of that excess comes from cheap refined carbs. This is a socioeconomic observation and not a metabolic one. You are confusing correlation and causation. It’s comments like these that are the reason we have such horrible nutritional advice. My comment was about how sources of carbohydrates (and all food for that matter) are more similar than dissimilar: drinking a soda and taking a multivitamin is metabolically not much different from eating fruit. That doesn’t mean people should drink soda instead of fruit, but it does mean people should consume less of both. You are better off having some vegetables, nuts or animal fats/proteins. Fruit isn’t healthy just because it’s natural.
    - commoner 5y ago
      Nutrient density is not a measure of calories per mass or volume (energy density). This is what nutrient density means in the context of nutritional science:[1] > The nutrient density standard, as defined by the FDA, is the ratio of the amount of beneficial nutrients relative to the food’s energy content per reference amount customarily consumed. The more nutrient-dense foods are those that contribute more beneficial nutrients than calories to the overall diet. Fruits and vegetables generally have higher nutrient density than most other food categories:[2] > As expected, we found that fruits and vegetables were nutrient-dense in relation to their energy content. > However, the data unambiguously showed that fruits and vegetables were nutrient-rich in relation to the little energy that they provide. Although fruits and vegetables suffer when assessed on the calories/price ratio, they represent extremely good value when assessed using the nutrient density score and the nutrient to price ratio. Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), the most common source of added sugars, contributes to obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D):[3] > Consumption of SSBs has increased markedly across the globe in recent decades, tracking closely with the growing burdens of obesity. These beverages are currently the largest source of added sugar intake and the top source of daily energy in the US diet. The cumulative evidence from observational studies and experimental trials is sufficient to conclude that regular consumption of SSBs causes excess weight gain and these beverages are unique dietary contributors to obesity and T2D. Compelling evidence indicates that reducing SSBs will have significant impact on the prevalence of obesity and its related diseases, especially T2D. Consuming at least 2 servings of fruit and 3 servings of vegetables per day (excepting fruit juices, starchy vegetables, and potatoes) is associated with lower mortality:[4] > In the 2 prospective cohorts with many repeated measurements of diet and up to 30 years of follow-up, we observed that a higher intake of fruit and vegetables was associated with a lower risk of total mortality and cause-specific mortality in a nonlinear manner. Our analysis in the NHS and the HPFS and in a meta-analysis of 26 prospective cohort studies documented that intake of ≈5 servings of fruits and vegetables daily was associated with the lowest mortality, and higher intake was not associated with additional risk reductions in mortality. The thresholds of risk reduction in mortality were 2 servings daily for fruit intake and 3 servings daily for vegetable intake. Higher intakes of most subgroups of fruit and vegetables were inversely associated with mortality, whereas intakes of starchy vegetables, fruit juices, and potatoes were not associated with mortality. And again, there is no evidence that fruits and whole grains in general are unhealthy in a balanced diet for most people. Eating fruits is not equivalent to combining sodas with multivitamins. Fruits have fiber, antioxidants,[5] and other compounds that are absent from multivitamins. [1] https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/4/721/4607427 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/4/721/4607427 [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7446672_A_Nutrient_Density_Standard_for_Vegetables_and_Fruits_Nutrients_per_Calorie_and_Nutrients_per_Unit_Cost https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7446672_A_Nutrient_... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325726/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325726/ [4] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048996 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.0... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_antioxidants_in_food https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_antioxidants_in_food
throwawaylinux 5y ago
And is this "healthy dietary pattern" based on good science?
- nradov 5y ago
  Well there is hardly any "good science" in human nutrition. It's mostly just observational studies with results distorted by the healthy subject effect and other uncontrolled confounding variables.