[cies]

Fructose usually comes as part of fruit. Fruit is extremely good food for humans (as long as you have not eaten fatty foods before it).

Fructose also has the best ability to be absorbed by muscle cells without the need for insulin, compared to other sugars.

I think you mean high-fructose syrup, which is not fructose but a glucose-fructose. Contains the same word but is verrrry different in health profile.

[maxharris]

> Fruit is extremely good food for humans

It is most certainly not. The soluble and insoluble fiber in fruit is good for humans because it prevents rapid absorption of fructose, which is most definitely toxic. (Paracelsus was right when he said that the dose makes the poison! It just so happens that even small doses of fructose have an outsized impact on appetite.)

Fructose is toxic because it is primarily metabolized by the liver. It has been shown to be at the root of overeating because of its effects on satiety signaling via leptin and ghrelin.

> Fructose also has the best ability to be absorbed by muscle cells without the need for insulin, compared to other sugars.

This is simply false. (Google it!) When used by an athlete after strenuous activity, it is true that fructose replenishes _glycogen_ in the liver, which is released as glucose, which muscle can use. But most people haven't just finished running a marathon when they gulp down a liter of Gatorade. So the effect 99% is to just fatten you up.

I recommend a few educational videos to bring you up to speed on a great deal of science that has been discovered in the last 15 years or so. Dr. Lustig (endocrinologist at UCSF) lays it out:

"Processed Food: An Experiment That Failed": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvgxNDuQ5DI

"Fructose is a poison": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgTlFFWMNy0

https://robertlustig.com/fructose-restriction/ https://robertlustig.com/fructose2/

[oil25]

Fruit is absolutely healthy for humans - physiologically we are frugivorous apes, after all. Hence why nearly all evidence-based nutritional guidelines from all around the world encourage whole fruit consumption, as part of a diet with other whole plant foods like grains, legumes and vegetables.

> gulp down a liter of Gatorade. So the effect 99% is to just fatten you up.

This could not be further from the truth. Humans are notoriously inefficient at de novo lipogenesis - the process of turning sugar into fat. The myth that sugar causes weight gain (on its own, not accompanied by a high-fat diet) is just that - a myth. Not to say gulping down Gatorade is a good idea, but it isn't nearly as harmful as consuming a steak, or a stick of butter, when it comes to weight gain.

[spraak]

> Fruit is absolutely healthy for humans - physiologically we are frugivorous apes

I agree, and it's incredible how much vitrol I've seen in response to this biological and physiological fact.

Here is an example source

> The dietary status of the human species is that of an unspecialized frugivore [1]

[1] https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00545795/document

Claude Marcel Hladik, Patrick Pasquet. The human adaptations to meat eating: a reappraisal. Human Evolution, Springer Verlag, 2002, 17, pp.199-206.

[cies]

There is a huge discussion amoung evolution scientist if we can even adapt that fast. It usually takes muuuuch longer to adapt. We certainly did do selective breeding to ensure that the current population of humand is "better" at surviving meat/dairy/grain/extracted-fat consumption. But adapted? That's much contested.

And yes, high meat is one thing in modern diets. But dairy/grains/extracted-fats certainly also need to be considered as "foreign to our original diet"

[spraak]

Sorry, I'm confused where you stand on the issue - do you agree that we are originally physiologically frugivorous? It's possible to get all necessary nutrition through fruits, leaves (greens), nuts/seeds (and may have once required the addition of insects for which we can now supplement) but it's very time consuming and tedious to do so. And in fact, I don't believe we are well adapted to eating animals.

[cies]

> do you agree that we are originally physiologically frugivorous?

Yes.

> It's possible to get all necessary nutrition through fruits, leaves (greens), nuts/seeds (and may have once required the addition of insects for which we can now supplement)

I totally agree. Except apes are not known to eat nuts, and are known to eat insects (when a tasty one craws by). So I expect us to be adapted to that as well. As a vegan I refrain from eating insects (although I find it a lot less offensive than eating mammals), so some selected nuts/seeds and a B12 supplement do the trick for me.

> but it's very time consuming and tedious to do so.

Given that we can buy tropical fruit (yay for mango) by the box, and have knives, I'd say it has never been easier.

> And in fact, I don't believe we are well adapted to eating animals.

Obviously. It causes us a lot of diseases. Animal product industry trying to spread FUD in order to stay in business a few months longer, but the end is near for them. And good riddance. :)

[cies]

Thanks for chiming in. The anti-fruit (and then usually pro fat/ meat/ paleo) team is very confused yet very vocal.

> physiologically we are frugivorous apes, after all

If one does not (cannot) accept this fact, I'm not sure I even want to discuss the nitty gritties of diet that person.

[em-bee]

you are literally claiming the opposite of almost everyone else. could you back that up with some evidence please?

for decades the word has been that fat is bad, now the narrative is slowly changing to sugar. now you are either turning it around again, and if so, i'd like to see the evidence for that. (and by that i mean current studies that prove that other studies about sugar are false) or you are simply repeating what we have been told for decades which has been shown to be false.

[cies]

One cannot say any diet component is absolutely bad or good. It needs to be compared to something else, quantities/quality needs to specified, bodily condition needs to be considered.

If you're interested see Greger, McDouggal, Esselstyn, Fuhrman, they are evidence based "meta study" doctors, that try to bring all evidence together. They also (each) have videos showing how to spot a paid for study (like the one showing butter is not bad by comparing it to huuuuge intake of coconut oil, which no-one does, but then "butter is back" get's printed on TIME mag).

[andrekandre]

i was under the assumption that it was simple calories such as pasta/bread/rice/candies etc

is that then not true? if not, what is the cause of weight gain?

[oil25]

Fat has more calories and is more easily stored by the body than carbohydrates. Processed carbs, simple sugars give a greater rise in the hormone insulin, which basically puts fat into fat cells. It is not carbs' conversion to fat which causes weight gain, but their consumption in the presence of a high-fat diet.

[andrekandre]

interesting... would that mean, it’s easier to gain fat by eating pasta + lots of olive oil vs pasta with just tomato sauce?

(i have a terrible olive oil addiction ^_^)

[cies]

Yes. In case both meals are calorically equal, yes.

The excess in cals from carbs are only marginally turned into fat (lipogenesis is not something humans are good at) and thus the excess is mostly burnt up by heating your body a bit higher (forgot the scientific term for this).

So the fat you eat is pretty much the fat you wear.

If you eat fat and carbs together (almost everyone does that) then your body will choose to use the carbs energy directly and store the fat. As fat is good for long term storage (unlike carbs, that get stored as sugar for short term use in muscles and liver), and carbs not bee efficiently turned into fat (as mentioned) yet can very efficiently be stored.

[cies]

One can only gain weight when over eating calories.

But if one over eat calories but NEVER takes high fat foods it becomes A LOT harder to put on weight.

If one overeats but eats a lot of fats (especially saturated fats) COMBINED with sugars (the softdrink at the snack meal) and COMbINED with inflammetory foods (all animal drive foods and processed foods) then putting on weight is super easy.

Making fat out of carbs (sugars+starches), lipogenesis, is something humans are not good in. Eating low fat is healthy, but do the math because you will easily think you eat low fat without even going under 10cal% from fat (which is like the cut off value for actually a low fat diet — I dont reach that usually, but then I'm not gaining weight).

[andrekandre]

thanks for the reply

so if i wanted to prevent gaining fat, the best bet is to keep fat under 10% of carbs, then if eating carbs with say vegetables and (non fatty) meat or fish, i would not gain weight vs a carbs + fatty meat + other oils type of meal (even if calories were equal) ?

[cies]

> the best bet is to keep fat under 10% of carbs

You mean cals, not carbs i guess.

If you are interested in this you may want to read "80-10-10".

> and (non fatty) meat or fish

The tiniest bit of fish/meat/oil will likely get you over 10cal% fat. Because there is a little fat in all veg/fruit/etc, which will bring you to 5+cal% without nuts/seeds/avocado. Half an avocado a day, or a small hand of nuts and you already cross the 10cal% in most diets.

You can use cronometer.com to do your research on this. It's fun and enlightening.

[ObscureScience]

I think you got it wrong. Fructose is more inflamatory than glucose (which is not good in high concentrations as well). Fructose-Glucose would be saccharine, the most common type of sugar extracted from cane and beet.