Fruit and Fructose

http://www.t-nation.com/article/diet_and_nutrition/the_evils_of_fructose

Recognition that fructose is problematic will become increasingly widespread. Mark it down.

The body needs glucose. Any and all sugars cause an over-secretion of insulin. You should therefore get your glucose from non-sugar sources. Starch is the only non-sugar source of glucose. You should eat some starch.

I am not in disagreement about eating low glycemic foods, but that article is so erroneous and full of assumptions I cannot even believe they published it.

it also, all but states, that whole fruit is of little concern.

high fructose corn syrup and fructose in whole fruits are two entirely different things.

Just a site note--I love Testosterone Nation. Real cool site with some very different methods of tackling bodybuilding from both physical/mental and nutritional perspectives.

Gibson wrote:it also, all but states, that whole fruit is of little concern.

high fructose corn syrup and fructose in whole fruits are two entirely different things.

Not really, Gib. First, it states that fructose is the devil and that one should avoid WHOLE fruits which contain the highest levels of fructose. It does not merely focus on HFCS and you know this.

Second, you have to read that article in the larger context of the author's agenda. I wouldn't expect you to get that unless you visit T-Nation frequently and I guessing you don't. Forsythe is buddy buddy with a nutritionist named Dr. John Berardi. Berardi jumped on the starch-is-the-devil bandwagon and came up with a diet system that allows one to eat only protein and vegetables during the day. Originally, fruit was also allowed more or less freely. Starch was only allowed post-workout. So now you have people eating basically meat and vegetables. Fruit was the only thing that allowed them to get through it; if Berardi restricted fruit also, no one would be able to stick to his "plan."

Now, though, the evidence against fruit consumption is mounting. In the face of that evidence, he and his cronies have had to release articles assuring his clients that HFCS is the real devil, that not all fruits are created equal, and that you can get away with eating some. But this is a big shift from his position just a couple years ago and is, to me, a transparent attempt to save a dietary plan that is based on flawed assumptions.

In sum, even a man who's entire dietary plan depends on fruit for energy and calories has had to concede that it is not ideal. If it weren't for his crazy plan, he would no doubt counsel against fruit altogether (which he should); but he can't. So as a result, you get the kind of article you saw. Here is another by the man himself in the same vein:

http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1973615

So, Gibson, the significance is not the conclusion itself, but rather the fact that this shows an evolution away from fruit consumption. Give it time, lad.

EIC,

Your academic posturing aside, among other needless asides, make for one painful read, particularly since your case isn't very strong. So you have elliminated fructos, but you had to elliminate fruit in the process. Doh!

Your scope is way too narrow for my tastes.

Gibson wrote:EIC,

Your academic posturing aside, among other needless asides, make for one painful read, particularly since your case isn't very strong. So you have elliminated fructos, but you had to elliminate fruit in the process. Doh!

Your scope is way too narrow for my tastes.

You mean "fructose," right? I don't know what "fructos" is. And you spelled "eliminated" wrong not once, but twice. Anyway, what was it you were saying about my posts being a painful read? You're a clown, dude.

the spell-check angle is for dweebs.

get a life and get off my johnson.

Gibson wrote:the spell-check angle is for dweebs.

get a life and get off my johnson.

Normally I don't pick on grammar (indeed, I make mistakes as well), but I couldn't resist when those blatant mistakes came in a post which calls my posts painful to read. It was too ironic to ignore.

Here's the deal, Gib, before my last comment, I made only one remark (the "yoga-fest" one) which could even remotely be regarded as a direct attack on you. And, to clarify, I meant "yoga-fest" in jest, not to criticize, though I can see room for your interpretation.

But the fact remains that I am critical of a lot of the things you believe in. You have apparently chosen to take that personally, which is unfortunate. I note, however, that you have repeatedly failed to counter my arguments with any actual arguments of your own. Instead, you simply call my posts "painful to read," criticize my conclusions, or call me a "dweeb."

My theory is that eating a balanced diet of meat, starch, veggies, and fats is ideal. I believe that moderate weight training presents no direct threat to hair and is a healthy activity. I think that fruit stimulates an oversecretion of insulin and is there not fit to be a staple food in one's diet. I am not necessarily saying that one should never eat fruit; but I do think that we should view it more as a candy or treat rather than a food which should be a big part of the diet day in and day out.

These views are not only supported by science and several learned professionals (some of which are former full-blown vegetarians), but are supported by thousands of years historical record. In light of that fact, you have a choice when I post what I post (because I will not stop, no matter how much it annoys you): You can either respond with contrary evidence (which will help advance my and others' understanding of this issue), or you can just refrain from saying anything at all. The option that you have chosen thus far--responding solely with personal attacks--not only fails to add anything to the debate, it makes you look like a jackass.

I don't have an agenda, or "beliefs" as you call them, outside of sharing my experiences through this forum, nor am I trying to assert anything, as you seem to be. You may align yourself in opposition to me, but you hardly know me, or what I am about, what I look like, what I have achieved health-wise, etc. Anyone can take or leave my advice. I think it is lame that your focus is on the microcosm. When I write about detox, your panties get in a twirl. Then you call names. That's the behavior of a "clown." What is painful is what length you go to assert your ideas, lashing out at me, and over-reacting pompously with preponderance. Just be cool.

BTW--I gave your diet a week's run. no thanks.

are there any other articles against fruit?..

I feel less apprehensive when i'm eating fruit than when I am eating meat or eggs..am I wrong to think that way?...this is so difficult its a lot easier to just eat nothing