6 ms·
Effect of fruit rich diet on liver biomarkers, insulin resistance, lipid profile
- jboogie77 4y agoHardly applicable to the public given the patient population in the study
- jp57 4y agoIt's applicable to people in the public with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, since that's the population they were studying.
- lucassen 4y agoResearch also suggests that NAFLD is present in up to 75% of people who are overweight and in more than 90% of people who have severe obesity, also called extreme obesity. The public is pretty fat, you know.
- PaulHoule 4y agoFor a long time there has been speculation that large amounts of fruit aren't good for most people.
- staticautomatic 4y agoWouldn’t this manifest in countries with fruit heavy diets?
- jhugo 4y agoOut of curiosity, which countries are those?
- staticautomatic 4y agoThe West Indies seem to have comparatively high fruit consumption
- orionion 4y agoFruit was a seasonal "treat" (in Europe) before refrigeration and airflight extended the season year around.
- triyambakam 4y agoUh, source? Have you never heard of a cellar? There are lots of fruits that keep through the year until the next harvest season with simple technologies. Jams, apples, kangina for grapes (admittedly not in Europe).
- eurasiantiger 4y agoCorporate interests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company
- jp57 4y ago"Conclusion: The results of the present study indicated that consumption of fruits more than 4 servings/day exacerbates steatosis, dyslipidemia, and glycemic control in NAFLD patients. Further studies are needed to identify the underlying mechanisms of the effects of fruits on NAFLD."
- scoot 4y agoNothing to do with the fact that they are 90% sugar?
- dmix 4y agoYeah this sounds like a something I'd read in a keto book I just read. High carbs -> poor insulin regulation, preventing the burning of fat and creating weight gain, plus various other pressures on the body which result from that.
- gilmore606 4y agoI thought this too, but I've also seen speculation that fructose specifically triggers the body to be more inclined to store blood sugar as fat. If you think about it you can imagine an evolutionary just-so story for it. When protohumans encountered fruit, it was usually in a large quantity that couldn't be easily stored. Best to gorge and get chubby for later.
- qeternity 4y agoIt largely has to do with different metabolic pathways for fructose vs glucose. Glucose can be metabolized in many places in the body, including directly in your muscles (glycogen) whereas fructose can only be metabolized in the liver.
- dmix 4y agoHummingbirds adapted to use fructose for energy production just like glucose: > Now new research from the University of Toronto Scarborough shows they are equally adept at burning both glucose and fructose, which are the individual components of sugar; a unique trait other vertebrates cannot achieve.\ > From an evolutionary perspective the findings make perfect sense, says Welch. Whereas humans evolved over time on a complex diet, hummingbirds evolved on a diet rich in sugar. "Hummingbirds are able to move sugar from their blood to their muscles at very fast rates, but we don't yet fully understand how they are able to do this," he says. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205165823.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205165823.h...
- victorvosk 4y agoHow do I get funding for garbage studies? "Our overweight group had bad bloodwork, too much fruit is bad for you."
- bonestamp2 4y agoYa, it's not surprising that more sugar/calories (even from fruit) would increase BMI.
- juve1996 4y agoNo surprise: A shitty diet + fruit is not going to make a big difference.
- appleiigs 4y agoThe article says there is a difference.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- juve1996 4y agoIt didn't control for enough to draw any meaningful conclusions from the study. A shitty diet + more fruit on top will likely be worse than just a shitty diet. Fruit has sugars. If you drank 2 liters of soda every day an extra apple isn't going to help.
- spfzero 4y agoThe fruit is the shitty diet.
- triyambakam 4y agoYeah, humans as unspecialized frugivores shouldn't be eating fruit. (eye roll)
- eurasiantiger 4y agoIt’s not that we can’t eat it, it’s that in a paleolithic setting we would not have been able to eat banana every day.
- triyambakam 4y agoI find that hard to believe. Humans don't make their own vitamin C which is a strong case for our need to eat fruit. A banana also barely has fifteen percent of the daily requirements for vitamin C. This study [1] finds that humans 200,000 years ago consumed up to 600mg a day of vitamin C - that's a lot of fruit. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14527634/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14527634/
- throwthere 4y agoDisclaimer I only have access to the abstract. It seems unreal to me that you could explain a bmi jump from 25 to 31 in six months with a fruit diet. Their randomization doesn’t pass the sniff test. IMHO, again without having access to the article, the most likely explanation is they have poorly matched trial and control groups with small (80) number of participants. That they didn’t report changes at all and just the final values raises a red flag. The other major caveat is this was presumably done with Iranians and I have mostly no idea what their baseline diet is.
- tangue 4y agoThis. Plus hidden alcohol consumption is something that is never take into account while doing these kind of studies in muslim countries.
- ncmncm 4y agoThe fruit eaters drank more alcohol?
- credit_guy 4y agoI think the GP means that the stratification for the intervention group and the control group does not consider alcohol consumption. It probably considers sex, age and initial BMI, but alcohol consumption is an important variable too.
- alliao 4y agopretty sure fruits nowadays are so selected to the point of junk food banana/pineapple/mango/guava/grapes(!)/watermelon was never as sweet couple of decades ago...
- rudolph9 4y agoPretty sure fruit now days, is bigger, looks prettier, and ships better but definitely not sweeter.
- smn1234 4y agoagreed. All the size is diluting the sugars. Tomatoes don't taste the same as they used to
- moltar 4y agoTake a look at this one: https://www.sciencealert.com/fruits-vegetables-before-domestication-photos-genetically-modified-food-natural https://www.sciencealert.com/fruits-vegetables-before-domest...
- JieJie 4y agoHoneycrisps disagree with you. “Our investigation found that more recently released commercial apple varieties have better storage capabilities, contain more soluble solids (sugars) and have less phenolic content. Recent efforts to improve our apples have been focused on keeping fruits fresh for longer and making them taste sweeter. With the expansion of global food markets and our growing preferences for sweeter tastes, these changes are indicative of the desires of modern society.” https://theconversation.com/apples-werent-always-big-juicy-and-sweet-ancient-ones-were-small-and-bitter-180220 https://theconversation.com/apples-werent-always-big-juicy-a...
- eurasiantiger 4y agoThe sad part is that the phenols are beneficial for physical, mental and microbiotic health.
- 4y ago
- riknos314 4y agoCaviat: only have access to the abstract At least 4 servings of fruit vs less than 2 servings is a huge amount of variability, even within groups. Someone could eat mostly fast food and be in the control or eat a very strict keto diet and still qualify for the control group. The abstract mentions no attempt to control for any food intake other than fruit, which in combination with the relatively small sample size makes this study basically meaningless IMHO
- triyambakam 4y agoOK, but what else did they eat?