IS FRUIT BAD FOR YOU??? HELP! lol

[ptrmull]

Originally Posted by ItsUpToYou

So I love fruit... I probably eat at least 2 - 4 servings a day!! I can't help it!! I do lack veggies which is something I'm working on.... but the big question "Is fruit bad for me, if I'm wanting to gain muscle?" I think I'm hypoglycemic because I feel like I have low blood sugar often... Example today pre workout: 1/2 serv oats, 2 slices ezeiciel bread (spelling?), 2 egg whites, 1 whole egg, 4 black olives, lil bit of spinach, 2 slices tomatoe.... And during my workout I still felt dizzy (I drink tons tons tons of water even during my w/o) so I had a banana in my locker I occasionaly snack on during my workout, and it's been helping but is that bad that I'm doing that? Or is it good to be delivering natural sugar to my muscles during a w/o?

Any advice would be great, thank you!!

fruit is bad if you have issues with diabetes or weight..its still sugar.

[DemetriaF]

Originally Posted by trance__dreamer

this is by far the most infuriating thread i've ever come across. pple, get it together, folks!!! *shakes head in disbelief* =S =S =S

Why would you be infuriated because some people choose not to eat fruits, or go low carb? I'm not infuriated because you love fruit.

[DemetriaF]

Originally Posted by WhiteDiamonds

What would we do if the world shut down? Would we turn down an apple because it would make us fat? lol
Crazy.

I wouldn't turn down a skewered rat either. And I highly doubt that one little rat would make me fat either. But the world would have to 'shut down' (as you say), for me to want to eat one.

[Miranda]

Originally Posted by DemetriaF

It's a combination of both portion and glycemic index. Hence the reason I mentioned glycemic 'load' or 'sugars.'

'sugars' does not necessarily = high GI, regardless of whether GI amounts to anything.

[DemetriaF]

Originally Posted by Miranda

'sugars' does not necessarily = high GI, regardless of whether GI amounts to anything.

'Sugars' don't necessarily equate ALL the time with 'low' GI either. I don't want to split hairs Miranda, but we don't have to play the semantics game either. I think I know what you were referring to, and hope that you in turn comprehend my original comment--especially after further clarification.

[Miranda]

Originally Posted by DemetriaF

'Sugars' don't necessarily equate ALL the time with 'low' GI either.

who said it did? it only seemed to me you'd confused GI with GL.

Originally Posted by DemetriaF

I don't want to split hairs Miranda, but we don't have to play the semantics game either. I think I know what you were referring to, and hope that you in turn comprehend my original comment--especially after further clarification.

fruit makes you fat and ditching sugar[s] makes you lean out so better ditch fruit than have to exercise more to have a hottie body while still eating fruit.

fully comprehended.

[Emma-Leigh]

^^
Although Alan / others have said most of it - I shall say what I have said to many others before:

There is nothing wrong with fruit, it SHOULD BE (and is essential) a part of a healthy diet and there is NO REASON you should drop it.

In terms of contest preperation - Yes, some people drop it from the last few weeks but others eat it right up to competition - it is all a matter of personal preference. Personally, I have cut to very low BF% eating 1 to 2 servings of fruit a day. It didn't make a damn bit of difference and, I feel, it actually HELPED.

Fruit is packed full of vitamins, minerals, fibre, anti-oxidants, phytochemicals, water and many other wonderful things.

In weight loss diet they help keep your body and brain 'fed' which helps your metabolism stay active and helps your blood sugars remain constant (they DO NOT and WILL NOT spike insulin - they have both low Glycaemic index values AND low Insulin Index Values).

They WILL NOT cause 'fat accumulation' due to filling liver glycogen stores - you need a crap-load of fruit before you will go CLOSE to filling liver glycogen stores and even MORE before you get any substantial de-novo lipogenesis (you need to eat MASSIVE amounts of carbohydrates - in the order of hundreds of grams, before you get this occuring to any significal degree).

They help you RECOVER from strenuous exercise as they have great anti-oxidant properties (esp berries), can help restore electrolytes (eg: Banana's are a great source of potassium), can help restore blood/whole body glucose (which is a problem after exercise, as your muscles suck all the glucose from your blood and this leaves nothing for your brain/body - which causes all sorts of metabolic stresses) and WILL help restore muscle glycogen to a certain degree (esp the higher glucose fruits like grapes, banana's and pineapples).

Eat up.

I also talk a bit about glycaemic index / load and the misunderstanding of the concepts involved here: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post291598021
As well as a bit here: http://www.maxcondition.com/page.php?122
^
It might help shed a little light on the subject too.

[Eileen]

Originally Posted by alan aragon

1) Even for someone keto dieting, it's very easy to fit in 2-3 fruits per day if you're willing to use fruit as a primary carb source.
2) Most fruits are low-GI. Not that GI has any significant bearing on bodycomp in the 1st place.
3) You're wrong about fruit not being able to deliver fuel substrate to working muscle. Hopefully you're aware that most fruit contains an even combination of fructcose & glucose. Also, you're kidding yourself if you think that the liver glycogenolysis doesn't occur during training.
4) Caring about how much fat is burned during training makes as much sense as caring about how much muscle is built during training. What matters is net fat balance by the end of the day/week/month, and this primarily is an issue of thermodynamics.

Why would I try to fit in fruit when I could have a bucketload of vegetables for the same calories/carbs, but get far more food and far better nutrition?

Sure, fruit is a good source of vitamin C. Most vegetables are better.

Eating fruit just because it's fruit, not because it supplies a need, is silly.

[WhiteDiamonds]

Originally Posted by DemetriaF

I wouldn't turn down a skewered rat either. And I highly doubt that one little rat would make me fat either. But the world would have to 'shut down' (as you say), for me to want to eat one.

This makes no sense.

[WhiteDiamonds]

Originally Posted by emma-leigh

^^
although alan / others have said most of it - i shall say what i have said to many others before:


I also talk a bit about glycaemic index / load and the misunderstanding of the concepts involved here: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post291598021
as well as a bit here: http://www.maxcondition.com/page.php?122
^
it might help shed a little light on the subject too.

this..

[alan aragon]

Originally Posted by Eileen

Why would I try to fit in fruit when I could have a bucketload of vegetables for the same calories/carbs, but get far more food and far better nutrition?

Sure, fruit is a good source of vitamin C. Most vegetables are better.

Eating fruit just because it's fruit, not because it supplies a need, is silly.

If you think that you can get identical nutritional benefits in vegetables & fruits, you need to do some studying.

[Eileen]

Originally Posted by alan aragon

If you think that you can get identical nutritional benefits in vegetables & fruits, you need to do some studying.

I did. Veg wins, hands down.

[DemetriaF]

Originally Posted by WhiteDiamonds

This makes no sense.

Really? I thought my response was (at the very least), in a similar vein to this....

What would we do if the world shut down? Would we turn down an apple because it would make us fat? lol Crazy.

[DemetriaF]

Originally Posted by Miranda

who said it did? it only seemed to me you'd confused GI with GL.

Bingo! You see it now! Yes, it only seemed that way.

fruit makes you fat and ditching sugar[s] makes you lean out so better ditch fruit than have to exercise more to have a hottie body while still eating fruit.

fully comprehended.

Your comprehension is vast, I'm impressed! To add to that, my health has vastly improved since giving up fruits. My cholesterol has dropped substantially, I feel better, I have little to no cravings, my endurance has improved, as has my ability to concentrate for long periods. Even my moods have greatly improved, I'm a lot less bitchy and moody than when I was a sugar eater. I experience no more afternoon lulls, and my energy is even throughout the day. My skin has improved immensely, and is now smooth and clear. I look less tired (even younger I dare say), my hair has grown at least 4 inches since giving up fruits and sugars (notice the use of the word 'and'), and is now silky, and indescribably more lustrous, even thicker than it was in my fruit munching days. I feel leaner, faster, and more improved overall. I feel like a terminator.

And on top of all that (if there could be any more), I now come closer to having the 'hottie' body I've always dreamed of. It's true what they say, it's all about diet!

[heidismommy]

No, fruit most definitely isn't bad for you. I understand that some choose not to eat it, but it certainly won't hurt you and will provide your body with vitamins, minerals, and fiber (and water, most fruit contains lots of it). I've always eaten fruit, have never had a hard time getting and staying lean from eating at least 1 or 2 servings of fruit per day. And I don't schedule fruit around my workouts either, I just eat it when it appeals to me. Fruit is natural, fruit is healthy, and fruit is unfortunately made out to be the devil by some.

[alan aragon]

Originally Posted by Eileen

I did. Veg wins, hands down.

Your perception of "winning" vs "losing" foods is the hallmark of someone who tends towards food alarmism and/or absolutism. It's not a matter of pitting one food against another - this is a common thought process of folks who need to 1) drop their religious/unscientific fear of fruit, and 2) do more studying.

[alan aragon]

To all reading this thread -- fruitphobia is perpetuated by folks who do not have a fundamental understanding of human physiology, nor an awareness of the relevant research.

[Emma-Leigh]

Originally Posted by DemetriaF

Bingo! You see it now! Yes, it only seemed that way.



Your comprehension is vast, I'm impressed! To add to that, my health has vastly improved since giving up fruits. My cholesterol has dropped substantially, I feel better, I have little to no cravings, my endurance has improved, as has my ability to concentrate for long periods. Even my moods have greatly improved, I'm a lot less bitchy and moody than when I was a sugar eater. I experience no more afternoon lulls, and my energy is even throughout the day. My skin has improved immensely, and is now smooth and clear. I look less tired (even younger I dare say), my hair has grown at least 4 inches since giving up fruits and sugars (notice the use of the word 'and'), and is now silky, and indescribably more lustrous, even thicker than it was in my fruit munching days. I feel leaner, faster, and more improved overall. I feel like a terminator.

And on top of all that (if there could be any more), I now come closer to having the 'hottie' body I've always dreamed of. It's true what they say, it's all about diet!

^^
Correlation in time doesn't necessarily mean causation.
For example: I could also say that weight lifting has caused my skin to get wrinkles. Because since I started lifting weights (when I was just at the end of my teenage years) I have gained many more wrinkles.
It occurred in the same time frame and, therefore, it must be so....?? Really?


A similar argument (with more of an association or, rather, a misinterpretation rather than anything): Someone cuts carbs at night... And loses 30#. Therefore carbs at night make you fat.
Do carbs at night make you fat? No.
But eating 600 calories worth of chips over your calorie requirements while reclined on the lounge for 6 hrs an evening probably does.
^ You get fat because of what it DOES, not because of what it IS.


With your particular situation: you seeing it has occurred simply in a similar time frame is not 'evidence' that fruit is the cause. It could be that the changes seen were a result of your physical training... A change in body composition associated with diet/physical activity..... a change such as the addition of fish oils or the addition of other EFA's, a higher protein/ lower saturated fat diet.... the removal of large amounts of HFCS and saturated fats if you were once a soda drinker and deep fried food eater... And even a better MENTAL state (eg: decreased depression/ better mood/ better sleep) which can also be seen as a response to healthy diet and exercise patterns can, in itself, achieve some of the other changes you have seen.

[DemetriaF]

Originally Posted by alan aragon

To all reading this thread -- fruitphobia is perpetuated by folks who do not have a fundamental understanding of human physiology, nor an awareness of the relevant research.

Fruitphobia or Ketophobia? I can count 10 to 1, citing the latter in this thread alone.

With all due respect, I have researched Alan, very much so. Not only that, it goes beyond theory into practice, as I've kept strict dietary logs for years on end, also monitoring my cholesterol, heart health (including stress tests), blood pressure, weight (but not anything which determines accurate fat percentage levels), muscle condition, etc. Including mood, fatigue, crashing, and how I'm feeling overall. I do this because as it stands, there aren't many long-term studies being done on Keto dieters (I'm in my 10th year btw).

But what saddens (and surprises), me about these 'Keto vs Westernized' diet arguments, is the amount of hostility and rudeness that these discussions incite within some individuals. I'm fully aware the contentiousness of religious and/or political debates, or even whether OJ Simpson was guilty or innocent, but food?!!!! I've experienced similar on other message boards, as many that follow Westernized diets seem to get very hot under the collar whenever it's revealed that some folks have veered from the standard dietary course, and have discovered an alternative (primitive), style of eating that works for them. One that also makes them feel good (or God forbid), even look better. I'm not implying for a moment that you're guilty of this--to the contrary. You at least seem willing to open a genuine dialogue as opposed to offering terse responses riddled with snarkiness. I do appreciate that, and I mean that in earnest.

The OP wanted opinions (both for an against), fruit eating. However, no temperatures seemed to have risen when pro-fruit eaters make their opinions known. The same cannot be said when the Keto enthusiasts have their say. Dietary theories are not written in stone, and arguments are plenty (even amongst health professionals). For the longest time eggs (or even nuts), were demonized by the health professionals as being catalysts for heart disease, obesity and beyond. However, both are currently being heralded as nature's superfoods, and as a means of staying both fit an healthy. So we're not able to state one way or another, and with 100% accuracy what Mother Nature had intended for optimal health. All we can do in the meantime is to gather information, sort it, and then find what works best for us as individuals. But I will say this, the Westernized diet is increasingly being proven as one of the worst for human health. It's great for big business, but not so great for human health overall. If anything, the optimal human diet is a lot closer to the one of early man, before the industrial revolution. This is where my interests lie, and where my dietary research has become increasingly focused.

What I find interesting is that although the Keto diet is commonly referred to as a 'trend,' this is the way humans have been eating since Lucy (the dawn of man), roughly 3.2 million years ago. We've lived on the Keto diet up until the industrial revolution, which is when the faddish Westernized and overly processed diet became a mainstay. Now although fruit isn't processed, many health professionals assert that it was not meant to be consumed daily. And mind you (as I've mentioned earlier), I do eat fruit, but in my case it's only moderate amounts of berries. I also don't perceive fruit as being as evil as a Krispy Kreme donut, but I will say that we eat far too much of it. Add to that, unless one is consuming strictly organic fruits, what's being consumed and grown here in the United States is increasingly genetically modified (GMO), something a number of health professionals and world citizens question terribly.

Early humans (and later), consumed fruit in a seasonal manner--meaning when the tree no longer bore fruit during a particular season, one wouldn't have access to additional fruit until the next harvest. This was until home refrigeration, canning techniques, pasteurization and the refrigerated trucking industry allowed humans to stockpile and transport fruits, and to sell it more readily on the common market. This is also when humans began consuming fruits in larger than normal quantities, and quite unnaturally. It was also during the industrial revolution that things like obesity, Type II diabetes, heart disease, stroke (including certain cancers), began to rise considerably to the startling numbers we see today.

The belief that the Westernized diet is a one-size fits all diet for 'all' residents of this earth is as foolish a notion as I've ever encountered. As it stands, the Westernized diet is in my opinion (including that of an increasing number of health professionals), to be one of the worst. Nor is it universal, as many cultures do eat the way nature intended, and do not experience the type of conditions experienced but those following Westernized diets. Many humans cannot tolerate this style of eating, and insulin resistance is just the tip of that iceberg. One doesn't even have to be insulin resistant in order to have some sensitizing factors toward daily fruit consumption, starch or simple carbohydrate consumption.

Those following Westernized diets consume entirely too much processed food, too many sweets, and yes, too many fruits. Fruit consumption has become an increasing trend (yes, a trend), in this country, because many believe that anything 'natural' must mean that it's good. Even mothers have have jumped on this bandwagon and feed their youngsters fruits as if they're going out of style. However, childhood obesity has also skyrocketed, although many claim this 'must' be a result of decreased activity, or even the video gaming trend. I believe these are indeed catalysts, however, one must also consider diet, and the amount of fruits (including juices), being consumed.

So I cannot comprehend the hostility offered by fruit enthusiasts, as it's highly doubtful that any considerable portion of the human population is at any risk of giving up their starches and sweets (natural or otherwise). I also doubt that there's any real cause for concern that Keto dieting will cause Krispy Kreme, Ragu of the Florida Citrus Industry's sales to drop anytime soon. To the contrary, of the already miniscule percentage of the Western population that actually attempts to 'try out' the Keto diet, most will fail and return to their Westernized eating habits as they're rich in comfort foods.

So why so much hate? Especially when those that follow long term Keto, Paleolithic, Atkins, Hunter Gatherer, Inuit diets (or whatever we want to call them), have discovered something life changing? How can I NOT feel enthusiasm to share and discuss openly something that's improved my quality of living (as well as my appearance), a hundred fold? How can I not? But as it stands, I'm unable to speak freely without angering (or even infuriating), some individuals. This I don't understand. Nor do I comprehend that there isn't at least some curiosity from fellow fitness enthusiasts, as the point of this site is to learn from one another.

[alan aragon]

Originally Posted by DemetriaF

Fruitphobia or Ketophobia? I can count 10 to 1, citing the latter in this thread alone.

I never bashed ketards yet in this thread. That's another discussion

With all due respect, I have researched Alan, very much so. Not only that, it goes beyond theory into practice, as I've kept strict dietary logs for years on end, also monitoring my cholesterol, heart health (including stress tests), blood pressure, weight (but not anything which determines accurate fat percentage levels), muscle condition, etc. Including mood, fatigue, crashing, and how I'm feeling overall. I do this because as it stands, there aren't many long-term studies being done on Keto dieters (I'm in my 10th year btw).

Self-reported case studies are uncontrolled (weak) evidence. Testimonies/anecdotes for any given protocol are a dime a dozen.

But what saddens (and surprises), me about these 'Keto vs Westernized' diet arguments, is the amount of hostility and rudeness that these discussions incite within some individuals. I'm fully aware the contentiousness of religious and/or political debates, or even whether OJ Simpson was guilty or innocent, but food?!!!! I've experienced similar on other message boards, as many that follow Westernized diets seem to get very hot under the collar whenever it's revealed that some folks have veered from the standard dietary course, and have discovered an alternative (primitive), style of eating that works for them. One that also makes them feel good (or God forbid), even look better. I'm not implying for a moment that you're guilty of this--to the contrary. You at least seem willing to open a genuine dialogue as opposed to offering terse responses riddled with snarkiness. I do appreciate that, and I mean that in earnest.

Okay, I'm with you, and I will try to be as civil as possible. However, I don't see how this is a Keto versus SAD discussion. It's a "is fruit bad for you" discussion.

The OP wanted opinions (both for an against), fruit eating. However, no temperatures seemed to have risen when pro-fruit eaters make their opinions known. The same cannot be said when the Keto enthusiasts have their say. Dietary theories are not written in stone, and arguments are plenty (even amongst health professionals). For the longest time eggs (or even nuts), were demonized by the health professionals as being catalysts for heart disease, obesity and beyond. However, both are currently being heralded as nature's superfoods, and as a means of staying both fit an healthy. So we're not able to state one way or another, and with 100% accuracy what Mother Nature had intended for optimal health. All we can do in the meantime is to gather information, sort it, and then find what works best for us as individuals. But I will say this, the Westernized diet is increasingly being proven as one of the worst for human health. It's great for big business, but not so great for human health overall. If anything, the optimal human diet is a lot closer to the one of early man, before the industrial revolution. This is where my interests lie, and where my dietary research has become increasingly focused.

I don't disagree with you that the SAD diet sucks. However, having been a professional in the nutrition/fitness business, working one-on-one with clients for the last 15+ years, I can tell you that an excess of whole fruit consumption has never been CLOSE to a significant contributor to why clients have sought my help. On the subject of paleo dieting, our distant ancestors were very likely not fruit avoiders (in fact, it's likely that fruit was a regular part of the daily diet when seasonally or geographically available).

What I find interesting is that although the Keto diet is commonly referred to as a 'trend,' this is the way humans have been eating since Lucy (the dawn of man), roughly 3.2 million years ago. We've lived on the Keto diet up until the industrial revolution, which is when the faddish Westernized and overly processed diet became a mainstay. Now although fruit isn't processed, many health professionals assert that it was not meant to be consumed daily. And mind you (as I've mentioned earlier), I do eat fruit, but in my case it's only moderate amounts of berries. I also don't perceive fruit as being as evil as a Krispy Kreme donut, but I will say that we eat far too much of it. Add to that, unless one is consuming strictly organic fruits, what's being consumed and grown here in the United States is increasingly genetically modified (GMO), something a number of health professionals and world citizens question terribly.

Ancestral dietary patterns varied widely with geography/food availability. It's incorrect to blanketly claim that a keto diet was consumed across the board.

Early humans (and later), consumed fruit in a seasonal manner--meaning when the tree no longer bore fruit during a particular season, one wouldn't have access to additional fruit until the next harvest. This was until home refrigeration, canning techniques, pasteurization and the refrigerated trucking industry allowed humans to stockpile and transport fruits, and to sell it more readily on the common market. This is also when humans began consuming fruits in larger than normal quantities, and quite unnaturally. It was also during the industrial revolution that things like obesity, Type II diabetes, heart disease, stroke (including certain cancers), began to rise considerably to the startling numbers we see today.

The rise in chronic disease was not likely due to an increase in fruit consumption. To imply that is ignoring plenty of other far more culpable factors.

The belief that the Westernized diet is a one-size fits all diet for 'all' residents of this earth is as foolish a notion as I've ever encountered. As it stands, the Westernized diet is in my opinion (including that of an increasing number of health professionals), to be one of the worst. Nor is it universal, as many cultures do eat the way nature intended, and do not experience the type of conditions experienced but those following Westernized diets. Many humans cannot tolerate this style of eating, and insulin resistance is just the tip of that iceberg. One doesn't even have to be insulin resistant in order to have some sensitizing factors toward daily fruit consumption, starch or simple carbohydrate consumption.

I'm gonna call a strawman here. Point me to where anyone here has promoted the typical western diet.

Those following Westernized diets consume entirely too much processed food, too many sweets, and yes, too many fruits. Fruit consumption has become an increasing trend (yes, a trend), in this country, because many believe that anything 'natural' must mean that it's good. Even mothers have have jumped on this bandwagon and feed their youngsters fruits as if they're going out of style. However, childhood obesity has also skyrocketed, although many claim this 'must' be a result of decreased activity, or even the video gaming trend. I believe these are indeed catalysts, however, one must also consider diet, and the amount of fruits (including juices), being consumed.

Show me your data that fruit consumption has increased (whole fruit in particular), because that's what we're discussing here. And please don't link me to some random lay press blog or the like.

So I cannot comprehend the hostility offered by fruit enthusiasts, as it's highly doubtful that any considerable portion of the human population is at any risk of giving up their starches and sweets (natural or otherwise). I also doubt that there's any real cause for concern that Keto dieting will cause Krispy Kreme, Ragu of the Florida Citrus Industry's sales to drop anytime soon. To the contrary, of the already miniscule percentage of the Western population that actually attempts to 'try out' the Keto diet, most will fail and return to their Westernized eating habits as they're rich in comfort foods.

Perpetual keto dieting is not optimal for a large segment of the athletic/nonsedentary population. Why you think everyone should jump to carb-restricted extremes is beyond me.

So why so much hate? Especially when those that follow long term Keto, Paleolithic, Atkins, Hunter Gatherer, Inuit diets (or whatever we want to call them), have discovered something life changing? How can I NOT feel enthusiasm to share and discuss openly something that's improved my quality of living (as well as my appearance), a hundred fold? How can I not? But as it stands, I'm unable to speak freely without angering (or even infuriating), some individuals. This I don't understand. Nor do I comprehend that there isn't at least some curiosity from fellow fitness enthusiasts, as the point of this site is to learn from one another.

I base my stance on relevant scientific research. While anecdotes aren't completely useless, they're a weak form of evidence because they are not the result of properly controlled experimentation. Again, I don't see testimonial sharing sessions as productive means of teaching or learning - especially when the subject is physiology.

[ladymystique]

Originally Posted by alan aragon

Pretty cool how reducing calories leans you out more

lol very funny! No I replaced it with Veggies. Duh.

[alan aragon]

Originally Posted by ladymystique

lol very funny! No I replaced it with Veggies. Duh.

Okay, let me rephrase... Funny how reducing your consumption of metabolizable energy leans you out more.

[kimm4]

Originally Posted by ladymystique

when I cut fruit out of my diet I leaned out more. I would say consistancy though as with anything. Don't cut it out of your diet, just cut back a bit on it. Has lots of sugar! I use not eat fruit at all but since have added a green apple a day or some blue berries in my oatmeal. If your training for a competition though I don't think you should eat any.

Eating the right amount of calories, having a solid macro breakdown and giving yourself enough time to diet is what gets you competition lean.

It has nothing to do with fruit...

[DemetriaF]

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

^^
Correlation in time doesn't necessarily mean causation.
For example: I could also say that weight lifting has caused my skin to get wrinkles. Because since I started lifting weights (when I was just at the end of my teenage years) I have gained many more wrinkles.
It occurred in the same time frame and, therefore, it must be so....?? Really?

Aloha Emma-Leigh! I also want to thank you for engaging in dialogue as opposed to sarcasm. Very much appreciated.

I comprehend your point, and it's a valid one. However, I have been following the ketogenic program for over ten years now. I'm basically my own human lab rat, as I'm unable to locate any long-term studies done on singular individuals following this type of eating program. So like any good researcher, I often pull myself off the program (sometimes abruptly, sometimes not), in order to gather and compare information.

During each instance I discover changes in regard to my appearance, energy/endurance levels, including mood and fatigue. My weight (first bloat, then fat), begins to slowly climb (despite any changes in my exercise program), the skin on my body and face changes, dark circles appear darker, collagen production slows, my hair starts looking shabbier, drier and breaks off easier, my nails aren't as strong, nasolabial folds appear deeper. Am I imagining this? Sometimes I believe so, but friends and family are the ones that often make me aware of things I might not see (also, pictures are good proof). So I document all of this. I then go back on Keto, and within 6-8 months I'm running at peak efficiency again, and friends/family ask if I've had plastic surgery, or if I've utilized some type of rejuvenating beauty treatment. Not really. Only change is that I'm back on the ketogenic, or hunter/gatherer diet. I've heard similar claims from other women who have been able to stay on the program long term.

A similar argument (with more of an association or, rather, a misinterpretation rather than anything): Someone cuts carbs at night... And loses 30#. Therefore carbs at night make you fat. Do carbs at night make you fat? No.

I would agree. Carbs eaten during the day would appear no more innocuous than those consumed at night.

But eating 600 calories worth of chips over your calorie requirements while reclined on the lounge for 6 hrs an evening probably does.
^ You get fat because of what it DOES, not because of what it IS.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I DO believe that what's being consumed is of significant relevance. If I consume 2500 calories of processed carbs (or even fruit), for one week straight, I can guarantee that I'll discover legitimate variations than if I were to consume a diet of meats and green vegetables for the same period, and of the exact same caloric content. I can pretty much guarantee that even at the end of such a brief stint, on the carb-rich diet I will retain water, I'll get moody, my skin will break out, I'll crash in the afternoon, and I'll more than likely gain a pound or two of water weight. One the vegetable/green meat diet I'll be the exact opposite of each of those things.

With your particular situation: you seeing it has occurred simply in a similar time frame is not 'evidence' that fruit is the cause. It could be that the changes seen were a result of your physical training... A change in body composition associated with diet/physical activity..... a change such as the addition of fish oils or the addition of other EFA's, a higher protein/ lower saturated fat diet.... the removal of large amounts of HFCS and saturated fats if you were once a soda drinker and deep fried food eater... And even a better MENTAL state (eg: decreased depression/ better mood/ better sleep) which can also be seen as a response to healthy diet and exercise patterns can, in itself, achieve some of the other changes you have seen.

Bottom line, I hear you.

But again, I'm not speaking from the perspective of coincidence, but instead from one of utilizing semi-scientific methods (even though I'm no scientist), and strict record keeping.

Diet and how it affects women's bodies is something I've grown extremely interested in over the years, and how it affects the aging process, mood, menopause, endurance, our beauty and primarily the shape and condition of our bodies. I despise the fact that so many women can't get the bodies they want, even with proper diet and exercise. So many women start out on the right foot, wanting and doing the right things. But even the best methods don't work the same way for every woman. So I look for tweaks, methods that might enable women (even those with less than favorable genetics), to discover alternatives, and to work with their own bodies.

If I even attempted to eat like our own resident goddess Kimm, I'd be 400 pounds or either in a coma. Not everyone has superior genetics, so it's all about options and having enough information to sieve through. Also to hear real stories from real women, and not to succumb to fear mongering that a keto, or hunter/gatherer diet is unhealthy or going to kill people. To the contrary, it might be just the thing that a number of women are looking for, if only they could get the chance to listen to those women that have had successful experiences as opposed to only negative ones. It's all about having choices, and if your plan works for you--stick with it! But also be open to change it if the plan stops working, as our bodies do change as we mature.

Over the past three years, I've also started exploring the effects of diet on female mice--mus musculus (with veterinary clearance of course). The results I've measured thus far are indeed noteworthy, if only from the perspective of a tiny female mouse. Especially in regard to life span, tumor growth, appearance of coat, bodyweight and which group spends more time on the wheel, etc. I'm no industry professional (nor do I receive funding through any particular source), but I believe these types of studies are in many ways significant, especially in regard to women and our numerous hormonal shifts (as male mice in the study are impacted differently).

So hey, I can't help but chime in whenever topics like this come up, or if the keto-hate machinery begins churning and puffing. Information is good for all of us, and it certainly won't hurt any woman looking for solutions to explore various types of 'health based' nutritional plans, even those that pre-date the industrial revolution, those that brought humans to where we are today.

Again, I thank you for your thoughtful and friendly input. :P

[freebirdmac]

Originally Posted by DemetriaF

So hey, I can?t help but chime in whenever topics like this come up, or if the keto-hate machinery begins churning and puffing.

Demetria, I gotta agree that there was no keto-hating going on here. It was simply about eating fruit, not carb content or macro ratios. I think you're just a little sensitive and jumped the gun here

[heidismommy]

Originally Posted by freebirdmac

Demetria, I gotta agree that there was no keto-hating going on here. It was simply about eating fruit, not carb content or macro ratios. I think you're just a little sensitive and jumped the gun here

I agree with you freebirdmac. I know that my post didn't mention anything about keto, just that fruit isn't as bad as some on this site make it out to be.

But now that it has been brought up: That is awesome that keto is working so well for you Demetria. I know for a fact, however, that it wouldn't be something I could see myself following. I need energy and without carbs I feel like absolute cr@p. I get approx. 40% of my calories from carbs (not exact, just an estimate) and I will say that is working perfectly well for me. I have tons of energy, I feel awesome, and I'm quite lean for a female (though I'm currently in gain mode and haven't been as tight with my macros and calories lately so not QUITE as lean as I would otherwise be). I'm sure keto does work for some and I'm not bashing it, just pointing out that it isn't for everyone. Just because it works for you, doesn't mean there aren't other ways to achieve optimal health and a great physique. I've come across many profiles of bodybuilding and figure women here who don't follow keto/low carb diets and you don't really get much leaner than that sort of physique. Not attacking, just saying.

[DemetriaF]

Originally Posted by alan aragon

I never bashed ketards yet in this thread. That's another discussion

Ketards? Great.

It's a "is fruit bad for you" discussion. I don't disagree with you that the SAD diet sucks. However, having been a professional in the nutrition/fitness budsiness, working one-on-one with clients for the last 15+ years, I can tell you that an excess of whole fruit consumption has never been CLOSE to a significant contributor to why clients have sought my help.

It's a host of things, and 'excess' fruit consumption is only one of many contributing factors.

On the subject of paleo dieting, our distant ancestors were very likely not fruit avoiders (in fact, it's likely that fruit was a regular part of the daily diet when seasonally or geographically available).

I DID actually mention that 'seasonal' fruit eating is not a bad thing. It's the way we consume it today, available every day and consumed like a dietary staple that has indeed become an area of concern for those still not realizing fat loss, even when cutting out all the so-called bad things, and doing the right things.

Fruit, I still contend is a hidden diet danger. It's not evil, but certainly cannot be consumed the way non-starchy vegetables can. People will not die or fall ill without fruit or fruit sugars. So sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

Ancestral dietary patterns varied widely with geography/food availability. It's incorrect to blanketly claim that a keto diet was consumed across the board.

Is it not also a blanket statement to believe that all humans had access to endless supplies of fruits, or that fruit is a critical element to a healthy dietary plan? Look no further than the Inuit paradox to realize this is simply not correct.

One thing I can say for sure, is that ancestral diet plans included little to no processed carbohydrates, nor did any of our ancestors have access to an endless supply of sugars (even fruits), year round by way of supermarket refrigeration or canning methods. Fresh fruits were perceived as delicacies, something to be savored whenever sweets made themselves available in nature, or when they were given as gifts.

The rise in chronic disease was not likely due to an increase in fruit consumption.

Not likely? No, not 100% likely. But a contributing factor? I'd definitely say so. Again, daily fruit consumption doesn't effect everyone the same. I know people that eat candy every day of their lives, and are still thin. I also know people that eat right and exercise regularly, yet still can't lose the fat. I know people that smoke like chimney's, yet never get lung cancer. I also know vegans that fall prey to diseases that only meat eaters are notorious for. But I'm referring to 'contributing factors' as opposed to absolutes.

I'm gonna call a strawman here. Point me to where anyone here has promoted the typical western diet.

There's more than one American diet. There's the horrendous one that we'd all agree is quite the garbage pit. Then there's the other, the controversial one promoted by the health and science experts in this country. This is where the information becomes conflicting based on the source.

I base my stance on relevant scientific research.

Relevance is highly dependent on who's conducting the study.

I'm in the coffee business, so I sign up regularly for google alerts relating to coffee and and health. The news alerts I receive daily--all from experts, researchers, schools of medicine, etc., spew the most conflicting information. One week coffee is a boon to good health, the next week it will kill you. The week after that it prevents Alzheimers and breast cancer, the week following that one it becomes a dangerous black drink again. The tea and coffee industries hash this out all the time, and we each can 'buy' our studies whenever sales drop. I can purchase a study tonight that will tell you six months from now that coffee reduces wrinkles.

One must realize in this day and age that science has fallen victim to corporate funding dollars, and many labs and science departments are struggling heavily to stay afloat. Just take a look at what Monsanto is trying to pull, and how this huge corporation is literally 'buying' scientific studies in order to calm the fears many have in regard to genetically modified organisms.

Show me your data that fruit consumption has increased (whole fruit in particular), because that's what we're discussing here. And please don't link me to some random lay press blog or the like.

I'm sorry, but I won't play ping-pong sending links back and forth to one another, especially since these are highly dependent upon their sources and funding. And with the amount I've amassed from various science professionals over the years (and I'm sure you have as well), we'd both be in 'link hell' in no time.

Perpetual keto dieting is not optimal for a large segment of the athletic/nonsedentary population. Why you think everyone should jump to carb-restricted extremes is beyond me.

When did I ever say this? Never! I believe we each should do what's right for us, and to do what works. I dare to say that it's the other way around, that folks won't even allow those that follow ketogenic nutrition plans to have a say without being bombarded with sarcasm, mockery or outright rudeness.

I'm not trying to change you--I wouldn't even want to do such a thing as I believe strongly in options and variety. Sticking to one train of thought, with no means of flexibility is a death trap IMO. Nor am I even attempting to convince you that I'm right, as there is no absolute answer to what's right when humans share such diverse genetic material.

[DemetriaF]

Originally Posted by freebirdmac

Demetria, I gotta agree that there was no keto-hating going on here. It was simply about eating fruit, not carb content or macro ratios. I think you're just a little sensitive and jumped the gun here

Truthfully, I'm not upset in the least. But I am getting somewhat tired of typing.

Unfortunately, the topic has swung over to keto. It always does whenever the 'non-fruit eaters' speak up, as non-fruit eaters are most likely keto followers. This is when the sensitivity begins, as fruit eaters don't seem to like hearing about these things. It's not that big of a deal, but I will talk.

[DemetriaF]

Originally Posted by heidismommy

I agree with you freebirdmac. I know that my post didn't mention anything about keto, just that fruit isn't as bad as some on this site make it out to be.

But now that it has been brought up: That is awesome that keto is working so well for you Demetria. I know for a fact, however, that it wouldn't be something I could see myself following. I need energy and without carbs I feel like absolute cr@p. I get approx. 40% of my calories from carbs (not exact, just an estimate) and I will say that is working perfectly well for me. I have tons of energy, I feel awesome, and I'm quite lean for a female (though I'm currently in gain mode and haven't been as tight with my macros and calories lately so not QUITE as lean as I would otherwise be). I'm sure keto does work for some and I'm not bashing it, just pointing out that it isn't for everyone. Just because it works for you, doesn't mean there aren't other ways to achieve optimal health and a great physique. I've come across many profiles of bodybuilding and figure women here who don't follow keto/low carb diets and you don't really get much leaner than that sort of physique. Not attacking, just saying.

Thank you! And you are 100% correct in your assessment. We should all do what works for us, and not bash what works for someone else, as long as the eating plan is one that's health based. But I only wish that others also shared this view. It's all about the love and support, and also choices!

[alan aragon]

Originally Posted by DemetriaF

Ketards? Great.

It's a host of things, and 'excess' fruit consumption is only one of many contributing factors.

Show me the data, otherwise you're just going on speculation. I have 1.5 decades of client files showing that the obese typically do not consume more than 1 fruit a week, while the lean consume about 2 fruits per day. Show me the data, otherwise you're just spouting bullshit.

I DID actually mention that 'seasonal' fruit eating is not a bad thing. It's the way we consume it today, available every day and consumed like a dietary staple that has indeed become an area of concern for those still not realizing fat loss, even when cutting out all the so-called bad things, and doing the right things.

Fruit, I still contend is a hidden diet danger. It's not evil, but certainly cannot be consumed the way non-starchy vegetables can. People will not die or fall ill without fruit or fruit sugars. So sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

Thus far you've offered nothing more than opinion.

Is it not also a blanket statement to believe that all humans had access to endless supplies of fruits, or that fruit is a critical element to a healthy dietary plan? Look no further than the Inuit paradox to realize this is simply not correct.

The Inuit had a predominance of marine fat. Also, do some studying on how the Okinawan diet is far from keto, yet they as a population outlive the Inuit by a large margin.

One thing I can say for sure, is that ancestral diet plans included little to no processed carbohydrates, nor did any of our ancestors have access to an endless supply of sugars (even fruits), year round by way of supermarket refrigeration or canning methods. Fresh fruits were perceived as delicacies, something to be savored whenever sweets made themselves available in nature, or when they were given as gifts.

Link me to where I or anyone has advocated an "endless supply of sugars". You are illustrating the common tendency to think in term of black/white extremes. All or nothing. Moderation is a foreign concept to you. Get a hold of yourself, my dear Hawaiian fruit-hating friend.

Not likely? No, not 100% likely. But a contributing factor? I'd definitely say so. Again, daily fruit consumption doesn't effect everyone the same. I know people that eat candy every day of their lives, and are still thin. I also know people that eat right and exercise regularly, yet still can't lose the fat. I know people that smoke like chimney's, yet never get lung cancer. I also know vegans that fall prey to diseases that only meat eaters are notorious for. But I'm referring to 'contributing factors' as opposed to absolutes.

Again, you offer opinion, but no objective data.

There's more than one American diet. There's the horrendous one that we'd all agree is quite the garbage pit. Then there's the other, the controversial one promoted by the health and science experts in this country. This is where the information becomes conflicting based on the source.

I'm waiting for you to show me the objective data indicating that a higher intake of whole fruit causes inferior health effects to a lower consumption of whole fruit.

Relevance is highly dependent on who's conducting the study.

I'm in the coffee business, so I sign up regularly for google alerts relating to coffee and and health. The news alerts I receive daily--all from experts, researchers, schools of medicine, etc., spew the most conflicting information. One week coffee is a boon to good health, the next week it will kill you. The week after that it prevents Alzheimers and breast cancer, the week following that one it becomes a dangerous black drink again. The tea and coffee industries hash this out all the time, and we each can 'buy' our studies whenever sales drop. I can purchase a study tonight that will tell you six months from now that coffee reduces wrinkles.

Link me to a study your company has purchased in order to thwart an anti-coffee agenda. I'd like to see that. If you can't do this, then this was a rather weak point. I realize that research funding is a factor to consider, don't take me for a damn fool. However, it's the totality of evidence and the quality of the said evidence that must be considered when making any judgement about it.

One must realize in this day and age that science has fallen victim to corporate funding dollars, and many labs and science departments are struggling heavily to stay afloat. Just take a look at what Monsanto is trying to pull, and how this huge corporation is literally 'buying' scientific studies in order to calm the fears many have in regard to genetically modified organisms.



I'm sorry, but I won't play ping-pong sending links back and forth to one another, especially since these are highly dependent upon their sources and funding. And with the amount I've amassed from various science professionals over the years (and I'm sure you have as well), we'd both be in 'link hell' in no time.



When did I ever say this? Never! I believe we each should do what's right for us, and to do what works. I dare to say that it's the other way around, that folks won't even allow those that follow ketogenic nutrition plans to have a say without being bombarded with sarcasm, mockery or outright rudeness.

I'm not trying to change you--I wouldn't even want to do such a thing as I believe strongly in options and variety. Sticking to one train of thought, with no means of flexibility is a death trap IMO. Nor am I even attempting to convince you that I'm right, as there is no absolute answer to what's right when humans share such diverse genetic material.

All I'm hearing from you is a bunch of unsubstantiated opinion. I get people in shape FOR A LIVING. You are unwilling to listen and actually be open to learning. You are defensive of your claims, yet you haven't given me a shred of supporting evidence beyond your personal testimony.