[overtone1000]

Much has been written on dietary simple sugar. It's controversial, so I can understand why the author may have skirted the topic. I thought the bit about tooth decay in chimps was a good hint that there are probably _some_ health effects.

I think what's interesting about this article is that one common bit of advice about limiting dietary sugar is that there's a big difference in the rate of absorption of simple sugar between fruit juice and raw fruit because the fiber content of raw fruit offers a natural means of limiting the rate of simple sugar absorption. But, if we are breeding extremely sweet fruit, it's a reasonable hypothesis that if such a "natural balance" of fiber and fructose exists, perhaps it has been undermined.

[D-Machine]

It is reasonable to presume that balance has been undermined. In general "eat your fruit and veggies" should probably be modified to "eat your veggies", which generally have fiber and better nutrient density, without the unnecessary sugar. Modern fruit really is basically plant candy. And sure, that's better than actual candy or junk food, but I no longer think it is really scientifically tenable to call most fruit "healthy".

[michaelmrose]

" but I no longer think it is really scientifically tenable to call most fruit "healthy"."

This doesn't appear to be even slightly tenable. The amount of sugar one consumes in a normal serving of fruit if not added to the massive amount we actually consume wouldn't be even slightly unhealthy.

[D-Machine]

Saying fruit isn't "healthy" doesn't mean it is unhealthy, there are plenty of neutral things here. But if you are treating fruits and veggies as the same (e.g. X servings of fruits and veggies), generally, anyone making X be 100% fruit is likely going to be less healthy than anyone making X be 100% veggies. And since all fruits do contain a lot of sugar (EDIT: and thus calories, which generally we already get too much of today), you should indeed moderate your consumption of fruits.

It is very hard, by contrast, to say a person can eat "too much veggies", unless they are doing something crazy like eating extreme amounts of the same greens high in oxalates or something.

Basically, enjoy a fruit or two a day, if you like them. Or don't. But you aren't "eating healthy" just because you eat a lot of fruit, nor are you eating unhealthily if you eat zero fruit.

[michaelmrose]

A healthy diet has always had a range of components. Insofar as you are eating a normal healthy amount fruit is healthy not neutral even with a higher sugar content you won't get an overdose of sugar just from any reasonable amount of fruit.

It is without meaning to compare incoherent dietary ideas like 100% veggies or 100% fruits.

[D-Machine]

Let me put it this way: I don't think it is an uncommon belief that "adding fruit" to an existing diet will have benefits. But, in fact, if you are meeting your caloric and nutrient needs already, it is unlikely it adds anything (except fiber), and it is plausible it is causing problems (increasing possibility of diabetes, adding extra calories). Veggies are a safer add.

In both cases, you probably need to be rebalancing and not adding things, but, for the same reason, it is sensible to err on the side of much more veggies than fruits. However, because fruit tastes like candy (and perhaps because you don't have to cook them, generally), people reach for adding more fruit to their diets, and this is likely sub-optimal. You should almost certainly be eating much more vegetables than you should be eating fruit. I.e. I'd say healthy is more like 80% veggie, 20% fruit, if you are putting them in the same category.

Maybe 50/50 is perfectly good too, but it seems pretty clear 100% fruit and 0% veggie is the worst possible choice, but 100% veggie and 0% fruit is perfectly fine. This should bring into question the appropriateness of the label "healthy" for fruit.

[littlexsparkee]

There's truth in this but leaves out anti-inflammatory polyphenols key for brain health like those in blueberries for instance.

[D-Machine]

Yes, although the evidence for those having meaningful or large health effects is far weaker, more suggestive / possible rather than clearly established. For sure though, "berries are healthy" is a far more general truth than "fruit is healthy" to be true.

[littlexsparkee]

by 'most', do you mean by those grown/consumed or by variety? because there's a vast array of fruits incl. savory (cucumber, tomatoes, avocado) as well as less common - soursop, cherimoya, mulberry, jackfruit, durian, so much more beyond the fructose bombs.

[D-Machine]

I'm assuming a Western context, and that fruit and vegetable have their common language and culinary meanings, so that e.g. tomato and cucumber are vegetables, and that "fruits" generally means what is available to and consumed in most Western contexts. This seems reasonable given the article.

Avocado I don't personally consider to be either fruit or vegetable (it is a "tree fat"), and is more in the category of things like olives or seeds / nuts, in culinary and nutritional terms too. Calling avocado a fruit or vegetable feels extremely awkward, as does calling things like olives, capers, or, say, fresh green peppercorns. Starchy / root vegetables are not really what is meant by "vegetables" in these discussions either.

And yes, tropical fruits and berries actually have meaningful nutrients, and are better choices.