Different opinion about fruit sugar



https://www.youtube.com/user/kevingianni?blend=2&ob=1#p/a/u/2/224_McXDN70

I don't really know the 'raw leaders' but I was procrastinating lol and I saw this video, wish i hadn't. It completely contradicts Doug Graham so I can see why people who really pay attention to this stuff are so confused. He basically argues that fruit is thirty times higher in sugar now than it was originally and that people who are eating high fruit are addicted to sugar and swapping one addiction ie. coca cola for another, ie. fruit. He says cells can be fed adequately from lettuce, but we can't live on lettuce, so he recommends 30% cooked because studies have shown that this is very beneficial, because lower than 70% raw is not good. Anyone with cancers he says should not be on fruit sugar, Confusing! maybe its just human nature to disagree.  

You need to be a member of The Frugivore Diet to add comments!

Join The Frugivore Diet

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Thanks for explaining everything so clearly Adam. You have such a great understanding, and it's so helpful to read your posts.
  • That's interesting. I have heard that before though Im not sure how to respond to that. What are the sugar contents of the astringent fruits being consumed like? Its true there are many sources of wild fruits which are not as sweet. Many also have higher protein and or fat contents, which would lower our sugar requirements slightly, as well as higher mineral contents.

    I am of the opinion that when eating higher quality fruits picked ripe and wild, and when we have a clean body that has not been damaged in the way many of our bodys are nowadays, that we would have had slightly lower fuel requirements than many of us do now. Though I doubt it would be significantly lower. If there was less sugar in fruit, it is possible that we would have compensated by eating more leaves, which would be higher in protein, reducing our calorie requirements slightly.

    Monkeys are much smaller than humans and so will have different fuel requirements anyway. But putting that aside, I can only imagine that in Africa, it is possible that we would have had a wider variety of fruits available to us, some of which would have been more astringent, others which would have been sweeter. The higher protein and mineral contents of their diet may be making the difference though. I really couldnt say for sure as Im not well versed enough in this area.

    Even if the cultivated varieties we find now were higher in sugar I think that to say that any fruits that are cultivated are 30 times higher in sugar than their wild counterparts is ludicrous. What may be true is that some cultivated fruits have higher sucrose levels than their wild counterparts. Though the glucose and fructose contents are still very high amongst wild fruits, which are the important sugars in human nutrition, especially the glucose.

    Take care

    Adam x
  • Hey Kt,

    Its just human nature to filter information through our perceptual filters to reinforce our current views of reality as closely as possible.

    The idea that sugar is addictive is ludicrous. Every cell in our body runs off sugar. Our brain only runs off glucose. Its like saying we are addicted to oxygen. It doesnt matter whether we eat cooked starches or fruit sugars, it all ends up as glucose anyway. The thing people forget when talking about "sugar is addictive" is that sugar is not addictive because of the sugar. Cane sugar is addictive because of the 15 strains of opioids. And because the refined (ie. fibreless) sugars in the cane sugar allow more calories to be consumed whilst taking up less volume, than wholefood sources of sugars. This tricks the body into thinking it is doing something that increases our chances of survival by resulting in a bigger dopamine hit.

    That fruit sugar is not stimulating to the nervous system in an addictive way, ie. does not result in higher levels of dopamine production or serotonin production, is evidenced by the fact that there are no people out there addicted to fruit. Most children once exposed to salt and refined sugar, will choose salty and refined sugary foods over fruits every single time. So will most adults for that matter. Thats why we have pathetic health promotion programs suggesting we eat our "5 a day", like 5 is actually a health-promoting figure that will protect us from disease...The reality is the government recommends 5 a day because thats all they think is realistic for people to willingly consume.

    To my knowledge there are no fruits that contain addictive compounds, like opioids. There are seeds of certain fruits that do (eg. cacao fruit seeds that are used to create chocolate, cocoa and cacao), but the fruit flesh itself does not.

    If fruit were 30 times higher in sugar now than originally, then we would have starved to death during our period of time as frugivores evolving in the jungles of Africa. Because we would have never been able to eat the amount of food required to meet our fuel demands. Its also generally accepted outside of the raw food community that fruits and vegetables taste less flavourful and less sweet than they did even 30 years ago, let alone 3 million years ago. Many wild tropical fruits are actually higher in sugar than commercially grown fruits, not lower. Wild tropical fruits might at least provide a closer estimation.

    Such discussions about fruit and sugar are only confusing to those who have no basic understanding of physiology and nutrition. Our cells can be adequately fed minerals, vitamins. EFA's and amino acids from lettuce, but we could never fuel our cells with enough sugar from lettuce.

    There is no evidence to suggest that cancer patients should not consume fruit and an endless body of research to suggest otherwise. Cancer patients should not be exposed to excess blood sugar levels, excessive sugar intake and excessive protein intake. The word excess is key here...ie. in excess of our bodys requirements. Its pretty much common sense that more fruit sugar than our cells need is excessive and therefore not going to be beneficial. However what isnt emphasised is that a diet low in fruit, in the raw world, is invariably higher in protein and omega 6 than is ideal for humans or cancer patients.

    Take care

    Adam x
    • Dude. Totally excellent post!!!

      Thank you so much, Adam, for this and other such intelligent writings. I want to read this one AGAIN. : )

      Love and respect. ♥
    • Thanks Adam this is very comprehensive you are really knowledgeable. I totally agree with everything you have said it makes complete sense. I also agree with you that people are confused because they don't know any better. However, I think because Brian Clement is the head of Hippocrates there could be the perception that he knows or at least should know what hes talking about. People will value his opinions and I found it strange that he hadn't come to the same conclusions about fruit as many others, ie. people eating 801010. His evidence could be good, I don't doubt the value of a high raw vegetarian diet but it was his emphasis on the danger of fruit that I found a bit questionable.
      • Hey Kt

        I agree, most people assume that because he is an MD and because he runs hippocrates that he must know what he is talking about. Unfortunately, training to be a medical doctor only teaches you to observe things in isolation and draw conclusions based upon that. Clement is neither a good researcher, a good scientist or a good nutritionist.

        A scientist when testing an hypothesis will identify possible variables affecting an experiment and its results when drawing conclusions, and will identify how to possibly test these variables in the future. Dr Clement has simply found that by injecting glucose in isolation (ie a refined sugar, injected into the blood stream) causes cancer to grow. So he has drawn the conclusion that since fruit is high in glucose, it must therefore also cause cancer. However this is not accurate. Fruit is not injected into the blood stream. Its sugars are buffered by fibre, which slow down the release of the sugar. The body is then able to control how much sugar enters the blood stream more easily. This prevents excess elevations of blood sugar levels. Fruit also contains minerals, which influence the effect of sugar on the body. Fruit also contains phytonutrients, many of which contain properties that induce apoptosis in cancerous cells. An example of this is ellagic acid.

        Even assuming that he showed that wholefood glucose caused cancer growth, there would be other variables to consider: What was the actual amount of sugar consumed? Was there too much being consumed at a given meal (ie. surplus to the bodys requirements at that time),? How much protein was in the persons diet, and when was the last protein rich meal they consumed? What kind of protein was consumed? What was the individuals fat intake like? How much and what sources? When was the last time they consumed fat and how much? What were their blood lipid levels like when the fruit was consumed? What were their cortisol levels like? What were their blood sugar levels like before, immediately after and each hour after the sugary meal? Was the sugar combined with anything else (eg. refined sugars such as juices, syrups like honey or agave)?

        Dr Clements overall emphasis on anti-fruit consumption appears to be from a limited and biased perspective, and does not seem to account for a number of variables.

        Take care

        Adam x
This reply was deleted.