5 ms·

So should we stop eating fruit? what's the actionable takeaway here for someone already avoiding high-fructose corn syrup?

devmor 3y ago
tl;dr - Limit processed sugars, eat significant amounts of fiber.
imjonse 3y ago
No, but we should probably stop eating or cut back seriously on cookies, cakes, and other non-fruit sources of sugar.
oldgradstudent 3y ago
Avoid sugar, regardless of whether it is added sugar or not. Sucrose is effectively 50% fructose. And the supposed benefits of fruits are pretty much non-existent.
- r2_pilot 3y ago
  Fruits, when consumed in moderation, also contain fiber and phytonutrients, hardly non-existent benefits.
  - oldgradstudent 3y ago
    Humans can thrive on meat alone without any problem. No fiber and no phytonutrients. The supposed benefits of both are basically hypotheses with really crappy observational data to support them.
    - r2_pilot 3y ago
      If anyone is still reading this, I would not suggest taking dietary advice from this poster. Talk to a nutritionist about your specific needs instead.
- nirav72 3y ago
  Even citrus fruits for Vitamin-C?
  - oldgradstudent 3y ago
    There are plenty of sources for vitamin C, and there are better sources for significantly less sugar.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  This is lazy either/or thinking; sugars are fine, excess sugar causes issues over a longer timespan.
  - oldgradstudent 3y ago
    That's a tautological statement. Excess of anything is harmful by definition (otherwise it is not in excess). The only question is how much is too much.
BiteCode_dev 3y ago
Fruits contains a lot of dietary fibers which lower the side-effect of fructose. Also, fructose itself is not in such a high dose in an apple, you are far away from fructose syrup concentration which was added to everything pretty much at the same time the obesity epidemic has started. Finally, fruits contains a lot of other beneficial nutrients, so benefits outweigh the harm fructose can do to you. We metabolize fructose fine in reasonable doses and with fiber. It has been part of our diet for thousands of years. It's not just the fructose. Any raw sugar is bound to have nasty-side effects. Our wheat flour is too processed, so the bread and pasta is not great for us as well. But a bit of whole pasta and bread will not spike your insulin level much. We are, as usual, overdoing it.
- valenceelectron 3y ago
  It's unfortunate naming similar to "fat". Most fruits are really not that high in fructose, compared to stuff like high-fructose corn syrup (well, it's in the name) that's widely added to beverages and other processed food.
  - vel0city 3y ago
    The fructose-glucose ratio of a lot of apples is almost 2:1. HFCS is usually 45-55% fructose. Watermelon has a similar ratio. Lots of fruits have a higher fructose to glucose ratio. HFCS is called high-fructose not because its some incredibly high level of fructose compared to most everything else, its because compared to regular corn syrup it is high. Regular corn syrup is nearly 100% glucose, so a mixture of 45% or 55% fructose is extremely high in that context. Table sugar is 1:1 fructose/glucose, but we don't call it high-fructose table sugar.
    - BiteCode_dev 3y ago
      It's not the ratio that hurts you but the absolute dose you ingest.
      - vel0city 3y ago
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
Nobody is saying that; it's not an either/or, or a dichotomy. The issue, as always, lies in overconsumption. Part of that is down to manufacturers, who especially in the US put loads of sugar in pretty much everything. Part of that is down to the consumer, which chooses convenience over awareness; part of that is things like take-out or drinking culture, but part of that is also diet culture, a diet telling you "stop eating this, only eat that". That too is convenience. As is calling certain foods "healthy" vs "unhealthy", because that's no absolute either, and it's a lazy descriptor - as in, "please explain to me why it is healthy / unhealthy". The crux of it is, nothing is healthy or unhealthy unless it's literal poison, it's more about calorific content and quantities.
- boredpeter 3y ago
  You can’t seriously be blaming consumers for this. It’s not consumers’ job to be scientists and understand whether some factory made ultra processed food is good for them or not. This is entirely because the government is bought and paid for by capitalists that lobby it to allow large corporations to sell garbage to people. The solution is a simple number on food (1-100) that tells a consumer how healthy (or not) a product is and takes into account caloric content, additivies, sugar content, etc. This is something the government should be doing but since the US is governed by radical conservatives that are immensely corrupt it’s likely not going to happen. There is an app I’ve recently started using called Yuka that does this. I’m also not opposed to banning certain categories of unhealthy products entirely. Your point about overconsumption is valid but again, I don’t believe this is the fault of consumers, this is just a result of the capitalist system which encourages overconsumption in order to keep the system from falling apart.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >The solution is a simple number on food (1-100) that tells a consumer [...] What's the evidence on interventions like this? We tried adding calorie counts on packaging and menus, but obesity rates are still going up.
    - dopidopHN 3y ago
stuff4ben 3y ago
Not fruit, but rather fructose and other diets contributing to fructose production. In the article and linked abstract (in a comment here), it said "process is initiated by the ingestion of fructose or by stimulating endogenous fructose production via the polyol pathway". I was curious about the "polyol pathway" and found this other study on "endogenous fructose production", https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6684314/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6684314/. Key takeaways: also avoid high glycemic and high salt diets. Basically avoid fast-food. Make your own meals. Eat less or no heavily processed foods. Watch your sugar and salt intake. Keep staying away from HFCS or corn syrup in general.
panarky 3y ago
Apples, grapes, pears, and watermelon are particularly high in fructose. You could substitute low-fructose fruits like berries, cantaloupe, and oranges. Many "healthy" snacks and desserts don't want HFCS on their labels so they use cane sugar, but that's a mix of glucose and fructose. And foods with a high glycemic index like white bread, potatoes, and rice might stimulate endogenous fructose production. You might think this study exonerates paleo diets, but there's evidence that excessive protein intake may contribute to gluconeogenesis, potentially increasing fructose production endogenously.
- taeric 3y ago
  And even though apples are high in it, you have to eat a silly number of them to get the same sugar as in one drink.
bentt 3y ago
Stop drinking a lot of fruit juice. We are outsmarting nature's packaging by doing that. Eat the whole fruit and the fiber comes along with it.
876978095789789 3y ago
No: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6518666/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6518666/ > Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that whole, fresh fruit consumption is unlikely to contribute to excess energy intake and adiposity, but rather has little effect on these outcomes or constrains them modestly. Single-meal RCTs, RCTs lasting 3–24 weeks, and long-term observational studies are relatively consistent in supporting this conclusion. Whole, fresh fruit probably does not contribute to obesity and may have a place in the prevention and management of excess adiposity.

devmor 3y ago

tl;dr - Limit processed sugars, eat significant amounts of fiber.

imjonse 3y ago

No, but we should probably stop eating or cut back seriously on cookies, cakes, and other non-fruit sources of sugar.

oldgradstudent 3y ago

Avoid sugar, regardless of whether it is added sugar or not. Sucrose is effectively 50% fructose. And the supposed benefits of fruits are pretty much non-existent.

r2_pilot 3y ago
Fruits, when consumed in moderation, also contain fiber and phytonutrients, hardly non-existent benefits.
- oldgradstudent 3y ago
  Humans can thrive on meat alone without any problem. No fiber and no phytonutrients. The supposed benefits of both are basically hypotheses with really crappy observational data to support them.
  - r2_pilot 3y ago
    If anyone is still reading this, I would not suggest taking dietary advice from this poster. Talk to a nutritionist about your specific needs instead.
nirav72 3y ago
Even citrus fruits for Vitamin-C?
- oldgradstudent 3y ago
  There are plenty of sources for vitamin C, and there are better sources for significantly less sugar.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
This is lazy either/or thinking; sugars are fine, excess sugar causes issues over a longer timespan.
- oldgradstudent 3y ago
  That's a tautological statement. Excess of anything is harmful by definition (otherwise it is not in excess). The only question is how much is too much.

BiteCode_dev 3y ago

Fruits contains a lot of dietary fibers which lower the side-effect of fructose. Also, fructose itself is not in such a high dose in an apple, you are far away from fructose syrup concentration which was added to everything pretty much at the same time the obesity epidemic has started. Finally, fruits contains a lot of other beneficial nutrients, so benefits outweigh the harm fructose can do to you. We metabolize fructose fine in reasonable doses and with fiber. It has been part of our diet for thousands of years. It's not just the fructose. Any raw sugar is bound to have nasty-side effects. Our wheat flour is too processed, so the bread and pasta is not great for us as well. But a bit of whole pasta and bread will not spike your insulin level much. We are, as usual, overdoing it.

valenceelectron 3y ago
It's unfortunate naming similar to "fat". Most fruits are really not that high in fructose, compared to stuff like high-fructose corn syrup (well, it's in the name) that's widely added to beverages and other processed food.
- vel0city 3y ago
  The fructose-glucose ratio of a lot of apples is almost 2:1. HFCS is usually 45-55% fructose. Watermelon has a similar ratio. Lots of fruits have a higher fructose to glucose ratio. HFCS is called high-fructose not because its some incredibly high level of fructose compared to most everything else, its because compared to regular corn syrup it is high. Regular corn syrup is nearly 100% glucose, so a mixture of 45% or 55% fructose is extremely high in that context. Table sugar is 1:1 fructose/glucose, but we don't call it high-fructose table sugar.
  - BiteCode_dev 3y ago
    It's not the ratio that hurts you but the absolute dose you ingest.
    - vel0city 3y ago

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

Nobody is saying that; it's not an either/or, or a dichotomy. The issue, as always, lies in overconsumption. Part of that is down to manufacturers, who especially in the US put loads of sugar in pretty much everything. Part of that is down to the consumer, which chooses convenience over awareness; part of that is things like take-out or drinking culture, but part of that is also diet culture, a diet telling you "stop eating this, only eat that". That too is convenience. As is calling certain foods "healthy" vs "unhealthy", because that's no absolute either, and it's a lazy descriptor - as in, "please explain to me why it is healthy / unhealthy". The crux of it is, nothing is healthy or unhealthy unless it's literal poison, it's more about calorific content and quantities.

boredpeter 3y ago
You can’t seriously be blaming consumers for this. It’s not consumers’ job to be scientists and understand whether some factory made ultra processed food is good for them or not. This is entirely because the government is bought and paid for by capitalists that lobby it to allow large corporations to sell garbage to people. The solution is a simple number on food (1-100) that tells a consumer how healthy (or not) a product is and takes into account caloric content, additivies, sugar content, etc. This is something the government should be doing but since the US is governed by radical conservatives that are immensely corrupt it’s likely not going to happen. There is an app I’ve recently started using called Yuka that does this. I’m also not opposed to banning certain categories of unhealthy products entirely. Your point about overconsumption is valid but again, I don’t believe this is the fault of consumers, this is just a result of the capitalist system which encourages overconsumption in order to keep the system from falling apart.
- gruez 3y ago
  >The solution is a simple number on food (1-100) that tells a consumer [...] What's the evidence on interventions like this? We tried adding calorie counts on packaging and menus, but obesity rates are still going up.
  - dopidopHN 3y ago

stuff4ben 3y ago

Not fruit, but rather fructose and other diets contributing to fructose production. In the article and linked abstract (in a comment here), it said "process is initiated by the ingestion of fructose or by stimulating endogenous fructose production via the polyol pathway". I was curious about the "polyol pathway" and found this other study on "endogenous fructose production", https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6684314/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6684314/. Key takeaways: also avoid high glycemic and high salt diets. Basically avoid fast-food. Make your own meals. Eat less or no heavily processed foods. Watch your sugar and salt intake. Keep staying away from HFCS or corn syrup in general.

panarky 3y ago

Apples, grapes, pears, and watermelon are particularly high in fructose. You could substitute low-fructose fruits like berries, cantaloupe, and oranges. Many "healthy" snacks and desserts don't want HFCS on their labels so they use cane sugar, but that's a mix of glucose and fructose. And foods with a high glycemic index like white bread, potatoes, and rice might stimulate endogenous fructose production. You might think this study exonerates paleo diets, but there's evidence that excessive protein intake may contribute to gluconeogenesis, potentially increasing fructose production endogenously.

taeric 3y ago
And even though apples are high in it, you have to eat a silly number of them to get the same sugar as in one drink.

bentt 3y ago

Stop drinking a lot of fruit juice. We are outsmarting nature's packaging by doing that. Eat the whole fruit and the fiber comes along with it.

876978095789789 3y ago

No: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6518666/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6518666/ > Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that whole, fresh fruit consumption is unlikely to contribute to excess energy intake and adiposity, but rather has little effect on these outcomes or constrains them modestly. Single-meal RCTs, RCTs lasting 3–24 weeks, and long-term observational studies are relatively consistent in supporting this conclusion. Whole, fresh fruit probably does not contribute to obesity and may have a place in the prevention and management of excess adiposity.