[Handsome Creepy Eel]

[roberto]

Giving up sugar is one of the best things I ever did. I did it in conjunction with ketosis. Now I eat mainly keto as it suits me.

I was never much of a fruit person, but along with my green veg I ate lots of carbs and drank lots of beer, which was my nemesis.

The idea that you should eat as close as diet as possible to that of your ancestors holds a lot of weight. It's oft-quoted, but worth repeating- 10,000 years is a drop in the ocean in evolutionary terms. Yet we have only eaten what we think of as 'staple' foods such as potatoes, 'modern' (bred by humans) fruit, wheat and rice for that long.

The trouble is of course, that our lineage is generally unclear beyond a few generations. For me, fatty meats, green veg and occasional fruit in the summer works great. Others will differ- for example a black man's mileage may vary. However, I would be interested to know if there were any tribes who ate predominately fruit pre Ag-revolution. I suspect they too would have been more hunter than gatherer, and they certainly wouldn't have had access to fruits as high in sugar as today.

This article is interesting, it gives timescales and evidence for meat consumption by early humans. Which makes that 10,000 years seem like a few seconds:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge...-103874273

That's not to say that some people won't run great on high fruit and carbohydrate diets. Gut flora can change much quicker than genetics and may play a part. However, I am firmly in the 'no sugar, limited fruit' camp.

[anonymous123]

This link pretty much describes the approach that my ex-wife would take with regards to fruit. It seems to make a lot of sense. But, now I'm starting to think it may not work for me. The gist of the link is that you can eat plenty of fruit throughout the day, but so long as you keep an overall caloric deficit you will lose weight.

http://www.incrediblesmoothies.com/faq-q...smoothies/

[SpecialEd]

(04-12-2014 04:56 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 03:01 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

I absolutely agree that fruit juice is not good because it includes unnaturally condensed levels of sugar. But eating moderate levels of fruit is fine, especially if it replaces refined sugar sources.

Define moderate.

1. Fruit is just a delivery mechanism for fructose.

Seriously? There aren't that many foods with the nutritional density of fruit. It's natural, it's raw, its loaded with vitamins and fiber. Human beings have been eating it for millennia.

I see the Paleo fan boys are running rampant on this forum. The anti-carb stuff is getting hilarious. Lol to guys afraid to eat an orange because they think their cavemen ancestor didn't partake.

[rottenapple]

(04-14-2014 04:32 PM)SpecialEd Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 04:56 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 03:01 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

I absolutely agree that fruit juice is not good because it includes unnaturally condensed levels of sugar. But eating moderate levels of fruit is fine, especially if it replaces refined sugar sources.

Define moderate.

1. Fruit is just a delivery mechanism for fructose.

Seriously? There aren't that many foods with the nutritional density of fruit. It's natural, it's raw, its loaded with vitamins and fiber. Human beings have been eating it for millennia.

I see the Paleo fan boys are running rampant on this forum. The anti-carb stuff is getting hilarious. Lol to guys afraid to eat an orange because they think their cavemen ancestor didn't partake.

What is important regarding fruits is to eat them and not just drink the juices. The pulp of fruit makes that the sugar load slowly goes into the bloodstream an thus has a less powerful effect on your glycemic load. When you drink the juice only it goes directly into the bloodstream causing a big peak, which is bad for health.

So eating fruit yes, drinking fruit juice no in general. Lemon juice and grapefruit are always ok due to acidity.

Now one extra problem is that many people who are used to western sugar and carbohydrate diet have an overgrowth of candida fungus in their stomach. If this is the case, you will need to starve it out, which unfortunately wont happen if you eat fruit every day, cause the fungus will use that sugar to survive. Look up candida to see if you fit any of the symptoms or do a test and then decide if fruit is a go for you or not.

[Seaver]

(04-14-2014 04:32 PM)SpecialEd Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 04:56 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 03:01 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

I absolutely agree that fruit juice is not good because it includes unnaturally condensed levels of sugar. But eating moderate levels of fruit is fine, especially if it replaces refined sugar sources.

Define moderate.

1. Fruit is just a delivery mechanism for fructose.

Seriously? There aren't that many foods with the nutritional density of fruit. It's natural, it's raw, its loaded with vitamins and fiber. Human beings have been eating it for millennia.

I see the Paleo fan boys are running rampant on this forum. The anti-carb stuff is getting hilarious. Lol to guys afraid to eat an orange because they think their cavemen ancestor didn't partake.

Just like getting bit by a great white shark, which has also been happening for millennia. It must be good for you!

[SpecialEd]

Do they still teach the kiddies logical reasoning these days?

[Gallego2006]

I love the serious look on that guy's face when he said: "we're toast… as a country."

I LOL'd pretty hard.

Gotta see this film. Hopefully it'll take off and resonate with Americans that we gotta change our food.

[Chaos]

A carbohydrate is always carbohydrate. Doesn't matter if you call it long or slow or if it comes from oranges or soda. It still will affect your body the same way.

Example.
Oranges contains 8,9gr carbs per 100gr.
Coca cola contains 10,4gr carbs per 100gr.

Eat your oranges boys, or you might aswell pop a soda.

[Tail Gunner]

(04-14-2014 11:40 PM)Chaos Wrote:  

A carbohydrate is always carbohydrate. Doesn't matter if you call it long or slow or if it comes from oranges or soda. It still will affect your body the same way.

Possibly the most inaccurate thing that I have ever read on this forum. All vegetables are also carbohydrates and they do not remotely have the same effect on your body as fruit, much less a candy bar or soda.

Nor does fruit have the same effect as a candy bar or soda. There are about nine grams of naturally occurring sugar in an orange, while there are about forty grams of high-fructose corn syrup in a twelve-ounce soda. I would much rather eat four oranges throughout the day than drink four sodas.

Of course, I would not argue against anyone who wanted to eliminate all sugar from their diet, but to argue that all carbohydrates are the same is ridiculous.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(04-14-2014 11:40 PM)Chaos Wrote:  

A carbohydrate is always carbohydrate. Doesn't matter if you call it long or slow or if it comes from oranges or soda. It still will affect your body the same way.

Example.
Oranges contains 8,9gr carbs per 100gr.
Coca cola contains 10,4gr carbs per 100gr.

Eat your oranges boys, or you might aswell pop a soda.

On top of what Tail Gunner said above, not only is the sugar in oranges different from the sugar in Coca cola, but the absorption of these carbs (sugar) from an orange is greatly slowed by the fiber present in it, as well as combined with various vitamins and minerals that a processed drink cannot have.

[JJ Roberts]

My comment about eliminating "all sugar" from your diet in the original post should be clarified.

I said all sugar that is separated from what its naturally attached to. The reason I said that is this.

Sugar its it's refined and packaged form is the ultimate empty carb.

What I mean by that is that the nutritional value of sugar is exactly zero. When I say zero I don't mean almost none.

I mean 0.00000000000000000000000000%

Its just an empty carb. No nutrition.

You can't say that about a piece of fruit.

[Tail Gunner]

(04-15-2014 09:26 AM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

My comment about eliminating "all sugar" from your diet in the original post should be clarified.

I said all sugar that is separated from what its naturally attached to. The reason I said that is this.

Sugar its it's refined and packaged form is the ultimate empty carb.

What I mean by that is that the nutritional value of sugar is exactly zero. When I say zero I don't mean almost none.

I mean 0.00000000000000000000000000%

Its just an empty carb. No nutrition.

You can't say that about a piece of fruit.

Your post prompted me to read your original post and the attached story. Very interesting.

It reminds me of a book that I read many years ago about sugar. It contained the history of sugar, including the wars fought over the sugar trade (which almost no one knows about). Processed sugar has not been around that long.

Quote:

Sugarcane remained a little-known crop in Europe for over a millennium, sugar a rare commodity, and traders of sugar wealthy.[11]

Crusaders brought sugar home with them to Europe after their campaigns in the Holy Land, where they encountered caravans carrying "sweet salt". Early in the 12th century, Venice acquired some villages near Tyre and set up estates to produce sugar for export to Europe, where it supplemented honey, which had previously been the only available sweetener.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_trade#History

The book essentially argued that if white processed sugar had been invented in the 20th century the government would have classified it as an illicit drug, because of its serious and detrimental effects on the human body.

[JJ Roberts]

@Tail Gunner ... interesting