Foods to Avoid

[Gumby]

But this all gets to a larger point... I think as college students, while certainly not wise, we don't have much invested in our opinions other than a little bit of stubbornness due to a limited life experience.  However, after we get to a certain point and have held opinions for a certain amount of time, a consistency mechanism kicks in, where admitting we're wrong is admitting that we've essentially failed for decades or years, or some "epiphany" that we had in the past was fundamentally incorrect.

There is an intense cliff of failure that we instinctually feel we are going over if we realize the ideas we've confidently, maybe even loudly and meanly, asserted for years if not decades are incorrect, and even worse, having to admit people we may have grown to hate and say awful things about are potentially correct.  We desire to be consistent, especially consistent in the face of admitting defeat to someone we've grown to loathe and having to question the advice of someone we've grown to respect.

Been there. Learning the other side of the coin hasn't been easy for me either (for both MR and food). The Internet has played a major role in exposing a number of myths. I mean, a few years ago, you could only learn by whatever books you could get a hold of — usually curated by your local librarian or professor. Before the Internet, it wasn't even possible for most people to learn about the opposing data and theories that challenged mainstream beliefs.

And now that people are able to access all of this conflicting data, we are seeing more and more people wake up and realize that there is another side to most stories we've been told. (Former diehard vegans/vegetarians like Daniel Vitalis and Lierre Keith have switched back to meat eating after learning the merits of nutrient-density and re-examing the data they now had access to — but which was previously inaccessible.)

Seriously, up until a few years ago, it was nearly impossible to find some of these resources that are turning our world upside down.

I really did not enjoy learning about the other side of the coin, but I'm much better off now.

By the way, there is a reason why I researched this particular subject so incessantly. My health failed a bit a few months ago, but I was able to turn it around through all my research and some intense detective work — discovering a lifelong infection I didn't even know I had in the process. Hope to tell you about it sometime soon.

[doodle]

Moda,...yes!!! Dropping the ego and its attachment to being correct is essential in the quest for truth. I always try to remember that I am not my argument. When people debate me they are attacking an idea, not me. It is my attachment to that idea that causes me to suffer.

Gumby, With regards to this topic, I really think it is possible to live a long and healthy life either as a carnivore or a vegetarian. As long as you eat a healthy diverse diet, I dont think meat is going to make or break you. I have met some very healthy (and strong) vegetarian athletes who in their 50s could still pass for someone 20 years younger. The human body is an amazingly adaptive machine. While meat may me optimal, there are serious ethical considerations for consuming it for many people which outweigh any health benefits it might have. With regards to the other issues of wheat, sugar, fat etc. I think many nutritionists are starting to come around closer to your line of thinking.

On another topic, all this talk of grassfed beef has whet my appetite a bit and Im curious if you have looked at the topic of Mad Cow disease. There was a big scare a few years back and then the topic just kind of disappeared. Me thinks if there were an issue, there is a lot of money trying to squelch it or sweep it under the carpet. What do you know regarding this topic?

[Gumby]

I really think it is possible to live a long and healthy life either as a carnivore or a vegetarian.

Agreed. Anything is possible.

While meat may me optimal, there are serious ethical considerations for consuming it for many people which outweigh any health benefits it might have.

Ahh... This is where the conversation could get really interesting. If you've been following the conversation, you know that I've been referencing Lierre Keith's book, The Vegetarian Myth. As a vegetarian for over twenty years, she converted back to meat-eating and now she has made it her crusade to argue that agriculture is waaay more unethical than meat-eating.

Michael R. Eades, MD explains in a review of her book:

She ponders the idea of factory farming, which she loathes, and the misbegotten idea that most people hold (not most readers of this blog, but most of the people in the world) that grains are good, not only for people, but for many animals as well.  And the common misconception that agriculture, the growing of annual grains and plants, is a wonderful, kind, sustainable activity.

[quote="Lierre Keith"]This misunderstanding is born of ignorance, an ignorance that runs the length and breadth of the vegetarian myth, through the nature of agriculture and ending in the nature of life. We are urban industrialists, and we don’t know the origins of our food. This includes vegetarians, despite their claims to the truth. It included me, too, for twenty years. Anyone who ate meat was in denial; only I had faced the facts. Certainly, most people who consume factory-farmed meat have never asked what died and how it died. But frankly, neither have most vegetarians.

The truth is that agriculture is the most destructive thing humans have done to the planet, and more of the same won’t save us. The truth is that agriculture requires the wholesale destruction of entire ecosystems. The truth is also that life isn’t possible without death, that no matter what you eat, someone has to die to feed you.

I want a full accounting, an accounting that goes way beyond what’s dead on your plate. I’m asking about everything that died in the process, everything that was killed to get that food onto your plate. That’s the more radical question, and it’s the only question that will produce the truth. How many rivers were dammed and drained, how many prairies plowed and forests pulled down, how much topsoil turned to dust and blown into ghosts? I want to know about all the species—not just the individuals, but the entire species—the chinook, the bison, the grasshopper sparrows, the grey wolves. And I want more than just the number of dead and gone. I want them back.

After she had seen the error of her ways as a vegan and had been eating meat for two years, for reasons unknown to her, the author continued to surf the same vegan websites and message boards she had for years.  Until she read one post that was so bizarre that she finally realized the large intellectual gap that had widened between her rationale thinking and the cult like thinking of, well, a cult.  It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

But one post marked a turning point. A vegan flushed out his idea to keep animals from being killed—not by humans, but by other animals. Someone should build a fence down the middle of the Serengeti, and divide the predators from the prey. Killing is wrong and no animals should ever have to die, so the big cats and wild canines would go on one side, while the wildebeests and zebras would live on the other. He knew the carnivores would be okay because they didn’t need to be carnivores. That was a lie the meat industry told. He’d seen his dog eat grass: therefore, dogs could live on grass.

No one objected. In fact, others chimed in. My cat eats grass, too, one woman added, all enthusiasm. So does mine! someone else posted. Everyone agreed that fencing was the solution to animal death.

Note well that the site for this liberatory project was Africa. No one mentioned the North American prairie, where carnivores and ruminants alike have been extirpated for the  annual grains that vegetarians embrace. But I’ll return to that in Chapter 3.

I knew enough to know that this was insane. But no one else on the message board could see anything wrong with the scheme. So, on the theory that many readers lack the knowledge to judge this plan, I’m going to walk you through this.

Carnivores cannot survive on cellulose. They may on occasion eat grass, but they use it medicinally, usually as a purgative to clear their digestive tracts of parasites. Ruminants, on the other hand, have evolved to eat grass. They have a rumen (hence, ruminant), the first in a series of multiple stomachs that acts as a fermentative vat. What’s actually happening inside a cow or a zebra is that bacteria eat the grass, and the animals eat the bacteria.

Lions and hyenas and humans don’t have a ruminant’s digestive system. Literally from our teeth to our rectums we are designed for meat. We have no mechanism to digest cellulose.

So on the carnivore side of the fence, starvation will take every animal. Some will last longer than others, and those some will end their days as cannibals. The scavengers will have a Fat Tuesday party, but when the bones are picked clean, they’ll starve as well. The graveyard won’t end there. Without grazers to eat the grass, the land will eventually turn to desert.

Why? Because without grazers to literally level the playing field, the perennial plants mature, and shade out the basal growth point at the plant’s base. In a brittle environment like the Serengeti, decay is mostly physical (weathering) and chemical (oxidative), not bacterial and biological as in a moist environment. In fact, the ruminants take over most of the biological functions of soil by digesting the cellulose and returning the nutrients, once again available, in the form of urine and feces.

But without ruminants, the plant matter will pile up, reducing growth, and begin killing the plants. The bare earth is now exposed to wind, sun, and rain, the minerals leech away, and the soil structure is destroyed. In our attempt to save animals, we’ve killed everything.

On the ruminant side of the fence, the wildebeests and friends will reproduce as effectively as ever. But without the check of predators, there will quickly be more grazers than grass. The animals will outstrip their food source, eat the plants down to the ground, and then starve to death, leaving behind a seriously degraded landscape.

The lesson here is obvious, though it is profound enough to inspire a religion: we need to be eaten as much as we need to eat. The grazers need their daily cellulose, but the grass also needs the animals. It needs the manure, with its nitrogen, minerals, and bacteria; it needs the mechanical check of grazing activity; and it needs the resources stored in animal bodies and freed up by degraders when animals die.

The grass and the grazers need each other as much as predators and prey. These are not one-way relationships, not arrangements of dominance and subordination. We aren’t exploiting each other by eating. We are only taking turns.

That was my last visit to the vegan message boards. I realized then that people so deeply ignorant of the nature of life, with its mineral cycle and carbon trade, its balance points around an ancient circle of producers, consumers, and degraders, weren’t going to be able to guide me or, indeed, make any useful decisions about sustainable human culture. By turning from adult knowledge, the knowledge that death is embedded in every creature’s sustenance, from bacteria to grizzly bears, they would never be able to feed the emotional and spiritual hunger that ached in me from accepting that knowledge. Maybe in the end this book is an attempt to soothe that ache myself.

How anyone who can read these 14 pages and not purchase and read this book is beyond me.

Source: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/lipi ... rian-myth/
[/quote]

To say that eating meat is unethical is only looking at a small part of our ecology. If you really think about it, agriculture is the real reason why our population has skyrocketed out of control and has enabled us to destroy the planet — and it abuses the topsoil that sustains all life on Earth.

A pre-Neolithic hunter/gatherer lifestyle was the most "ethical" way to live if you think about it that way.

On another topic, all this talk of grassfed beef has whet my appetite a bit and Im curious if you have looked at the topic of Mad Cow disease. There was a big scare a few years back and then the topic just kind of disappeared. Me thinks if there were an issue, there is a lot of money trying to squelch it or sweep it under the carpet. What do you know regarding this topic?

Good question. I'll try to post on that later. Gotta run...

[doodle]

Rocketdog,

I'd also like to encourage you and tell you to hold fast. Lierre Keith's claims are not incontrovertible fact. Durianrider on Youtube is a vegan who takes an active interest in debunking her apparently. I have only listened to a few of his clips, but he makes some decent arguments I think.

I also find the ethical argument that she makes for meat eating a bit tricky because it is focused on the ethics of meat eating within the context of a neo/paleolithic lifestyle. Our present population is way too large to allow 7 billion people to eat in this manner. So while consuming wild free range meat back then could be considered "natural" (it is a logical fallacy to use natural to justify ethical by the way) I have a hard time believing that this would be possible today. Feeding 7 - 10 billion people on a meat heavy paleo diet would be incredibly damaging to our planets ecosystem.

[Benko]

Gumby,

1. Just as certain predisposed people will remain unconvinced no matter what evidence you present on the gun issue, certain predisposed people will remain unconvinced on the ethics and meat issue.

2. Thorne is certainly a quality company, but there is less expensive MK4 e.g.

Carlson Labs, Vitamin K2, 5 mg, 60 Capsules  $16.19

http://www.iherb.com/Carlson-Labs-Vitam ... sules/6116

[doodle]

Gumby,

1. Just as certain predisposed people will remain unconvinced no matter what evidence you present on the gun issue, certain predisposed people will remain unconvinced on the ethics and meat issue.

Maybe you are the ones who are predisposed :-). After all, anyone who takes on guns and meat in America is swimming against the tide.

Truth is still being debated (and not to get too esoteric) ultimately there is the question of whether we can ever find "it". Certain spiritual seekers take issue with the idea that reality can be expressed through concepts.

Chapter one of the Tao de Ching for example makes such an argument:

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.

[Pointedstick]

If there is no expressible, communicable truth, then that means you don't have it, either.

[doodle]

If there is no expressible, communicable truth, then that means you don't have it, either.

I agree!!. We are all struggling to tie down reality and create a firm and stable surface upon which to build knowledge. The only problem is that we dont have a solid foundation from which to do this.

I won't even try to put this argument into words when Emerson has already done a fantastic job of doing so!

The materialist, secure in the certainty of sensation, mocks at fine-spun theories, at star-gazers and dreamers, and believes that his life is solid, that he at least takes nothing for granted, but knows where he stands, and what he does. Yet how easy it is to show him, that he also is a phantom walking and working amid phantoms, and that he need only ask a question or two beyond his daily questions, to find his solid universe growing dim and impalpable before his sense. The sturdy capitalist, no matter how deep and square on blocks of Quincy granite he lays the foundations of his banking-house or Exchange, must set it, at last, not on a cube corresponding to the angles of his structure, but on a mass of unknown materials and solidity, red-hot or white-hot, perhaps at the core, which rounds off to an almost perfect sphericity, and lies floating in soft air, and goes spinning away, dragging bank and banker with it at a rate of thousands of miles the hour, he knows not whither, — a bit of bullet, now glimmering, now darkling through a small cubic space on the edge of an unimaginable pit of emptiness. And this wild balloon, in which his whole venture is embarked, is a just symbol of his whole state and faculty. One thing, at least, he says is certain, and does not give me the headache, that figures do not lie; the multiplication table has been hitherto found unimpeachable truth; and, moreover, if I put a gold eagle in my safe, I find it again to-morrow; — but for these thoughts, I know not whence they are. They change and pass away. But ask him why he believes that an uniform experience will continue uniform, or on what grounds he founds his faith in his figures, and he will perceive that his mental fabric is built up on just as strange and quaking foundations as his proud edifice of stone.

[Gumby]

Lierre Keith's claims are not incontrovertible fact.

I agree that her claims should be challenged — as anyone's should — but I'm finding her points very difficult to refute. I mean, it is a fact that clearing an acre of land for agriculture is basically extermination of whatever was previously living there. I mean, that's what "Deforestation" is.

Deforestation

Deforestation, clearance or clearing is the removal of a forest or stand of trees where the land is thereafter converted to a non-forest use. Examples of deforestation include conversion of forestland to farms, ranches, or urban use...

...According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat, the overwhelming direct cause of deforestation is agriculture. Subsistence farming is responsible for 48% of deforestation; commercial agriculture is responsible for 32% of deforestation; logging is responsible for 14% of deforestation and fuel wood removals make up 5% of deforestation.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation

This is right up your alley, doodle (climate change, etc). Clearly it's a "fact" that deforestation is overwhelmingly caused by agriculture. Think of all the generations of animals, bugs and microorganisms that were wiped out to make way for any farm. (I'm aware that deforestation happens in nature — after forest fires — but those forest fires typically have beneficial effects for restoring ecosystems over the long run.) Think about how grain-based agriculture has allowed the human population to grow to a size where we might jeopardize our own environment. Think about how much more land will need to be cleared to increase agriculture production.

I'm not suggesting that we stop eating, or stop farming, or stop fishing. I'm mainly pointing out that agriculture is also very unethical to our entire ecosystem. And in the Paleolithic era, hunting helped sustain the ecological landscape by keeping the herbivores in check — from overpopulation and overeating the plant-based habitats.

Durianrider

Durian Rider is technically a "fruitarian" — which is total crazy town. Most of his "knowledge" is based on myths or unproven science (the Diet-Heart and Lipid hypothesis, for instance). He regularly mixes up his sugars. For instance, when people, such as Lierre Kieth, point out that fruitarian vegans, like Durian Rider, are mainly running on sugar, he points out that "every cell in the human body runs on glucose." Right, and while fruit has glucose, it also has a lot of fructose. Fructose has no role in the human body (unless you count elevating triglycerides a "role"). Fructose might as well be a toxin since fructose is instantly redirected to the liver the moment it enters the human body. He'd be better off eating low-fructose starches (i.e. "safe starches"). Not sure why anyone would want to eat that much fructose.

Steve jobs was a "fruitarian," by the way. Jobs developed the extremely rare pancreatic cancer known as islet cell carcinoma, which originates in the insulin-secreting beta cells. There's no way to know if his high fructose diet contributed to his rare form of cancer, but it is curious.

Speaking of which, here is a video of Durian Rider adding — no joke — a half pound of sugar into his 30-banana smoothie.

http://youtu.be/TmDRmr_KFu4

He's totally crazy.

I also find the ethical argument that she makes for meat eating a bit tricky because it is focused on the ethics of meat eating within the context of a neo/paleolithic lifestyle. Our present population is way too large to allow 7 billion people to eat in this manner. So while consuming wild free range meat back then could be considered "natural" (it is a logical fallacy to use natural to justify ethical by the way)

I don't understand your assertion that a Paleolithic hunter/gatherer was unethical with his kills. Wild herbivores have to be killed by carnivores and omnivores in order to keep the ecological landscape from getting unbalanced. Her argument — at least in Paleolithic terms — is that it would be unethical to let the herbivores grow beyond their means and destroy the habitat, because that would kill everything in the habitat (both animals and plants). In other words, we all need to be killed in order for the ecological landscape to stay balanced.

I have a hard time believing that this would be possible today. Feeding 7 - 10 billion people on a meat heavy paleo diet would be incredibly damaging to our planets ecosystem.

Right, of course. But, I believe her point is that the grain-based agriculture is more damaging in that it causes most Deforestation on the planet. And, now that I think about it, "factory farms" are technically powered by grain-based agriculture. The two go hand-in-hand.

If it weren't for agriculture, the population would have stayed relatively small — overpopulated groups would have starved — and our planet's ecosystem probably would have remained in great shape for millions of years — or at least until the next asteroid hits.

So, I guess it depends on your definition of "ethical". Is it more ethical to sacrifice the entire ecology of the planet to feed 7 billion people? Or is it more ethical to sacrifice each animal and plant species, equally, so that the planet remains intact for millions of years for the future generations of all species?

It's a tough call, but I suspect there is no easy answer.

All I can say is that eating only plants does not absolve anyone from eating unethically. Ideally we would all be hunter/gatherers and the anthropological evidence suggests we'd probably all be a lot healthier if we never invented agriculture. Of course, we'd all be in huts and grass skirts, but something tells me you'd prefer that minimalistic lifestyle, doodle.

[Gumby]

2. Thorne is certainly a quality company, but there is less expensive MK4 e.g.

Carlson Labs, Vitamin K2, 5 mg, 60 Capsules  $16.19

http://www.iherb.com/Carlson-Labs-Vitam ... sules/6116

Good one. Makes me wonder how different the two brands really are. I'm willing to admit that the price is coming down. Still for some reason, you never see K2 (as MK-4) in a multivitamin despite the fact that it may very well be one of the most important vitamins we can ingest. I don't take many supplements, but I'm a strong believer in the importance of K2 (particularly MK-4).

[FarmerD]

2. Thorne is certainly a quality company, but there is less expensive MK4 e.g.

Carlson Labs, Vitamin K2, 5 mg, 60 Capsules  $16.19

http://www.iherb.com/Carlson-Labs-Vitam ... sules/6116

Good one. Makes me wonder how different the two brands really are. I'm willing to admit that the price is coming down. Still for some reason, you never see K2 (as MK-4) in a multivitamin despite the fact that it may very well be one of the most important vitamins we can ingest. I don't take many supplements, but I'm a strong believer in the importance of K2 (particularly MK-4).

For the past couple months I've been making sauerkraut at home (It's really easy) and eat that that every other day as a side dish.  That gives lots of good probiotics and along with a piece of hard cheese daily should give a healthy dose of Vitamin K2 so I've tossed the probiotic and Vitamin K2 supplements.

Here's a thought:  Given that bacteria in our gut produces Vitamin K2, wouldn't getting a lot of probiotics in our diet boost our own Vitamin K2 production?

[edsanville]

Fructose might as well be a toxin since fructose is instantly redirected to the liver the moment it enters the human body. He'd be better off eating low-fructose starches (i.e. "safe starches"). Not sure why anyone would want to eat that much fructose.

Yes, but glucose and galactose are also redirected to the liver the moment they enter the bloodstream via the hepatic portal vein.  It doesn't mean they're toxins.  The liver simply processes fructose and galactose for further metabolism at the liver.

From Wikipedia:

All three dietary monosaccharides are transported into the liver by the GLUT2 transporter.[33] Fructose and galactose are phosphorylated in the liver by fructokinase (Km= 0.5 mM) and galactokinase (Km = 0.8 mM). By contrast, glucose tends to pass through the liver (Km of hepatic glucokinase = 10 mM) and can be metabolised anywhere in the body.

[Gumby]

Fructose might as well be a toxin since fructose is instantly redirected to the liver the moment it enters the human body. He'd be better off eating low-fructose starches (i.e. "safe starches"). Not sure why anyone would want to eat that much fructose.

Yes, but glucose and galactose are also redirected to the liver the moment they enter the bloodstream via the hepatic portal vein.  It doesn't mean they're toxins.  The liver simply processes fructose and galactose for further metabolism at the liver.

From Wikipedia:

All three dietary monosaccharides are transported into the liver by the GLUT2 transporter.[33] Fructose and galactose are phosphorylated in the liver by fructokinase (Km= 0.5 mM) and galactokinase (Km = 0.8 mM). By contrast, glucose tends to pass through the liver (Km of hepatic glucokinase = 10 mM) and can be metabolised anywhere in the body.

Well, first of all, glucose is a nutrient. It's stored in the liver as glycogen and then delivered wherever it needs to go.

Yes, galactose on its own isn't all that useful. Though, raw milk contains the enzyme galactase, which allows the body to assimilate it. (Which is why galactose isn't harmful to babies drinking a diet of 100% raw breastmilk).

The difference with fructose is that fructose really has no role in the human body. It's rapidly disposed of. Some argue that it replenishes glycogen, but it does a lot more harm in the process. For instance, fructose promotes cancer growth:

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/conte ... 8.abstract

[Gumby]

For the past couple months I've been making sauerkraut at home (It's really easy) and eat that that every other day as a side dish.  That gives lots of good probiotics and along with a piece of hard cheese daily should give a healthy dose of Vitamin K2 so I've tossed the probiotic and Vitamin K2 supplements.

Yes. Sauerkraut is a good source of probiotics and K2 as MK-4. I try to eat a little each day as well. Though, I probably might not eat tons of sauerkraut as it is a goitrogen and the fermentation does not neutralize the goitrogens found in cabbage.

Here's a thought:  Given that bacteria in our gut produces Vitamin K2, wouldn't getting a lot of probiotics in our diet boost our own Vitamin K2 production?

Humans are such poor converters of K1 to K2 that I doubt it would help that much. K1 is plentiful in plants, so you really need an herbivores complex stomach to make that conversion to K2 efficient.

Here's a list of good food sources (look for the ones high in MK-4):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_K#Vitamin_K2

[edsanville]

Well, first of all, glucose is a nutrient. It's stored in the liver as glycogen and then delivered wherever it needs to go.

Yes, galactose on its own isn't all that useful. Though, raw milk contains the enzyme galactase, which allows the body to assimilate it. (Which is why galactose isn't harmful to babies drinking a diet of 100% raw breastmilk).

The difference with fructose is that fructose really has no role in the human body. It's rapidly disposed of. Some argue that it replenishes glycogen, but it does a lot more harm in the process. For instance, fructose promotes cancer growth:

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/conte ... 8.abstract

That's a really interesting abstract.  It definitely sucks for all those people out there chowing down on the high-fructose corn syrup from the supermarket.

But fructose definitely does replenish glycogen through the fructolysis mechanism, that's how the liver metabolizes it.  If it was filtered out and discarded by the body, you might fairly call that "disposal,"  but fructose actually gets used for energy by the body. 

Fructose -> Glycogen -> Glucose -> energy

As for fruits though, there are a whole slew of studies that demonstrate how fruit (generally) prevents cancer.  Those micronutrient phytochemicals do all kinds of things to keep cancer in check, including preventing tumor angiogenesis, as this guy points out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9bDZ5-zPtY

Berries for the win!

[Gumby]

Fructose -> Glycogen -> Glucose -> energy

Yes, some fructose is converted to glucose. Fructose is also converted to lactate, and pyruvate.

But, fructose isn't an ideal way to replenish glycogen stores. If it were, the top glycogen replenishment aids (PowerBar, PowerGel, etc, etc.) would be made of primarily fructose. They are primarily glucose with a little fructose (the fructose helps with a jumpstart as it appears to be given priority by the liver, likely because it is a toxin that is rapidly disposed of and can be partly converted into glycogen).

As for fruits though, there are a whole slew of studies that demonstrate how fruit (generally) prevents cancer.  Those micronutrient phytochemicals do all kinds of things to keep cancer in check, including preventing tumor angiogenesis

If that were true, then Steve Jobs should have lived a long and healthy life. Instead, he got a rare form of cancer which originates in the insulin-secreting beta cells. Nobody ate more fruit than he did.

Again, it's true that fruits have some redeeming qualities — though most of those amazing qualities have been bred out of fruits for sweetness over the past few centuries.

In general, though, fructose is toxic — particularly if consumed in excess — and it appears to be highly reactive with PUFAs.

See: http://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM

[edsanville]

Yes, some fructose is converted to glucose. Fructose is also converted to lactate, and pyruvate.

Yes, but glucose is also metabolized to pyruvate and lactate during glycolysis:

glucose + 2 NAD+ + 2 ADP + 2 Pi ? 2 pyruvate + 2 NADH + 2 H+ + 2 ATP + 2 H2O

pyruvate + NADH + H+ ? lactate + NAD+

Pyruvate and lactate are just products of monosaccharide metabolism however you slice it.

If that were true, then Steve Jobs should have lived a long and healthy life. Instead, he got a rare form of cancer which originates in the insulin-secreting beta cells. Nobody ate more fruit than he did.

That's only one man, who apparently had an extreme fruit-only diet.  Something else could have caused his cancer, or it could have been a statistical fluke, or it could have been a result of omitting non-fruits from his diet.  When integrated into a normal diet, we have hundreds of controlled studies pointing to the fact that phytochemicals present in fruits and vegetables prevent cancer.  Different fruits and vegetables have different sets of phytochemicals that prevent different types of cancers in different ways.  Focusing on fruits and ignoring vegetables might be a problem.

Of course this has nothing to do with fructose, but the net effect of fruits seems to be protection against cancer.

Again, it's true that fruits have some redeeming qualities — though most of those amazing qualities have been bred out of fruits for sweetness over the past few centuries.

It's true that wild blueberries, for example, have more phytochemicals than cultivated blueberries.  Still, the cultivated fruits have a lot of phytochemicals, just in smaller amounts than the wild varieties.  I think that's why these people always stress the "organic" aspect of fruits and vegetables.

In general, though, fructose is toxic — particularly if consumed in excess — and it appears to be highly reactive with PUFAs.

See: http://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM

Well, anything is toxic in excess, even water.  I will check out the video at some point, when I get a spare hour and a half. 

The reason I'm debating is to convince myself as much as anybody else.  I've been eating a lot of fruits and vegetables lately, trying to prevent the cancer that will inevitably kill most people who don't die of cardiovascular disease.  Everything I've read talks about the power of phytochemicals to prevent all kinds of diseases, including cancer.  If plant fructose really is a huge problem, I want to know about it.

[Gumby]

The reason I'm debating is to convince myself as much as anybody else.  I've been eating a lot of fruits and vegetables lately, trying to prevent the cancer that will inevitably kill most people who don't die of cardiovascular disease.  Everything I've read talks about the power of phytochemicals to prevent all kinds of diseases, including cancer.  If plant fructose really is a huge problem, I want to know about it.

Well, nobody is going to argue that fruits and vegetables are bad for you. They are good for you (for the reasons you stated). And fruits and vegetables should be part of a healthy diet. But, fructose may be best in small to moderate quantities. Why? Because we don't really know enough about it.

Admittedly, even in the "Paleo" world, there are some outliers (mainly Ray Peat and Danny Roddy followers) who think fructose is good for you, but they don't really seem to be focusing on its toxicity as much as Dr. Lustig (is in the video above).

Paul Jaminet explains why it may be best to keep fructose on the low side:

PHD: Is It Good to Eat Sugar?

So you have Ray Peat and Danny Roddy who say lots of fructose is fine and dandy. And you have Paul Jaminet and Dr. Lustig who say that while fruit is likely beneficial in small quantities, it may be toxic if you eat too much (Paracelsus' rule: "The dose makes the poison"). And on top of that, fructose isn't really that great at refilling glycogen anyway (See Jaminet's article) — and if it were, athletes would favor it over glucose. But, they don't).

From my perspective, it's pretty clear that our bodies need glucose, and there are many, many different sources of glucose. But, the jury is still on fructose. It appears to have toxic properties and recent studies are giving that indication as well. So, it doesn't really make sense to overdo it on fructose until more research can be done. So far fructose is looking a little problematic — but nothing to worry about in small to moderate quantities.

High fructose corn syrup? Not good.

30 bananas a day and half-pound sugar smoothies? Probably not a good idea...

http://30bananasadaysucks.com

If plant fructose really is a huge problem, I want to know about it.

Well, then a good place to start may be to watch the video and decide for yourself. I'm not suggesting that Dr. Lustig gets everything right. He certainly doesn't. But, he may be on to something.

[Gumby]

Again, I'm not suggesting Dr. Lustig is correct when he says that all sugar (including fructose) is totally bad. I'm just saying that the evidence suggests that it may indeed be a toxin — particularly if you consume too much.

Here are just some of the studies that suggest that fructose may be bad in large quantities:

Physiological Reviews: Metabolic effects of fructose and the worldwide increase in obesity

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: Endocrine and metabolic effects of consuming beverages sweetened with fructose, glucose, sucrose, or high-fructose corn syrup

J Clin Invest: Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans

Hypertension: Fructose-induced fatty liver disease: hepatic effects of blood pressure and plasma triglyceride reduction

BMJ: Sugary drinks, fruit, and increased risk of gout

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America: Fructose-induced aberration of metabolism in familial gout identified by 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: Potential role of sugar (fructose) in the epidemic of hypertension, obesity and the metabolic syndrome, diabetes, kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease

International Journal of Obesity: Excessive fructose intake induces the features of metabolic syndrome in healthy adult men: role of uric acid in the hypertensive response

American Journal of Physiology—Renal Physiology: A causal role for uric acid in fructose-induced metabolic syndrome

Endocrine Reviews: Hypothesis: could excessive fructose intake and uric acid cause type 2 diabetes?

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: Increased consumption of refined carbohydrates and the epidemic of type 2 diabetes in the United States: an ecologic assessment

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: How bad is fructose?

Journal of Hepatology: Antibiotics protect against fructose-induced hepatic lipid accumulation in mice: role of endotoxin

The Lancet: Relation between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: a prospective, observational analysis

American Journal of Physiology: Fructose-induced leptin resistance exacerbates weight gain in response to subsequent high-fat feeding

Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications: Significance of fructose-induced protein oxidation and formation of advanced glycation end product

Neurobiology of Learning and Memory: A high fructose diet impairs spatial memory in male rats

Geriatric Nephrology and Urology: Effects of diets containing different proportions of macronutrients on longevity of normotensive Wistar rats

Metabolism: Postprandial plasma fructose level is associated with retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes

This all suggests that fructose may indeed be toxic to the body.

So... I think it's best to just be cautious with fructose. By all means, eat small to moderate amounts of fruit for the beneficial properties. But, don't overdo it until people understand what it really does in the body.

[edsanville]

If plant fructose really is a huge problem, I want to know about it.

Well, then a good place to start may be to watch the video and decide for yourself. I'm not suggesting that Dr. Lustig gets everything right. He certainly doesn't. But, he may be on to something.

Thanks, I did watch the video and it was excellent.  One thing Lustig did say was reassuring to me:

"When God made the poison, he packaged it with the antidote."

Fructose is a poison.... but wherever there's fructose in Nature, there's way more fiber. 

So, I think Lustig is trying to stress the fact that refined fructose (like HFCS) is horrible for you, but fruits and vegetables have so much water, fiber, phytochemicals, etc., that it becomes tough to consume enough natural fructose to be problematic.

Apparently, you'd have to eat either:

• 5 bananas
• 9 cups strawberries
• 89 cherries
• or 3 apples

to get the same amount of fructose as a 20-oz soda:

http://whole9life.com/2011/11/fructose-foolishness/

On a side note, starch is composed entirely of glucose, with no fructose.  So, according to Lustig it would seem that the best source of energy would be grains (high starch), while the best source of micronutrients would be fruits and vegetables.  Does that make any sense?

[Gumby]

So, I think Lustig is trying to stress the fact that refined fructose (like HFCS) is horrible for you, but fruits and vegetables have so much water, fiber, phytochemicals, etc., that it becomes tough to consume enough natural fructose to be problematic.

Indeed, it is difficult to overeat fruit when you chew each bite. Most people do not consume 30 bananas in a day. But Durian Rider does consume that much fruit — plus added sugar — and he's totally crazy (he's a "fruitarian"). Did you watch the YouTube video of him doing that? That's what I was arguing against. There is very little science to back up what he is doing. And the studies referenced above suggest that fructose seems to have problematic properties — especially in large quantities. It really seems to act like a toxin in the body.

to get the same amount of fructose as a 20-oz soda

Yeah, but 20oz is a lot of soda. A cup is only 8oz.

On a side note, starch is composed entirely of glucose, with no fructose.  So, according to Lustig it would seem that the best source of energy would be grains (high starch), while the best source of micronutrients would be fruits and vegetables.  Does that make any sense?

From what I've read, glucose isn't nearly as unstable as fructose in the body. And this makes sense since your body needs glucose to survive. I mean, it would be pretty problematic if our main source of energy was so unstable in the body.

Secondly, grains have all sorts of problems. Whereas potatoes, yams, taro, plantains, white rice, tubers seem to be safer sources of starch — as they have been eaten for millions of years.

[Pointedstick]

On a side note, starch is composed entirely of glucose, with no fructose.  So, according to Lustig it would seem that the best source of energy would be grains (high starch)

Almost... they need to be safe starches like potatoes, yams, or white rice. Grains are full of gluten that inhibit absorption of micronutrients.

[Gumby]

On a side note, starch is composed entirely of glucose, with no fructose.  So, according to Lustig it would seem that the best source of energy would be grains (high starch)

Almost... they need to be safe starches like potatoes, yams, or white rice. Grains are full of gluten that inhibit absorption of micronutrients.

Right. And they are full of phytates and lectins which also interfere with micronutrient absorption. They are also a rich source of insoluble fiber which basically acts like a wire brush on your intestines (corporations, and their scientists, who push insoluble fiber actually say that intestinal damage is good for the gut.). Soluble fiber is better.

"Safe starches" (potatoes, yams, or white rice, tubers, etc) have the longest/safest track record of any starch.

Again... Don't eliminate fruit. Just don't overdo it.

[edsanville]

On a side note, starch is composed entirely of glucose, with no fructose.  So, according to Lustig it would seem that the best source of energy would be grains (high starch)

Almost... they need to be safe starches like potatoes, yams, or white rice. Grains are full of gluten that inhibit absorption of micronutrients.

OK, great.  I eat a lot of berries, which have the highest fiber/sugar ratio of any type of fruit, so that's good.  Most vegetables have almost no sugar, and huge amounts of fiber, so they shouldn't be a problem.

I eat a lot of sweet potatoes, because they have a lot of vitamin A and a huge slew of different phytochemicals.  They also contain a large amount of starch.

White rice is a grain, though.  Is gluten the only issue with grains?  If so, then gluten-free grains would be an acceptable source of starch.

The Okinawans eat sweet potatoes as a staple crop, and eat far less white rice than the average Japanese.  It's for economic reasons, because they don't have many rice fields in Okinawa.  But, the result seems to be an average life expectancy of ~90!  In addition to the sweet potato staple, and a small amount of white rice, they eat a large amount of fresh vegetables and some fruit, and a small touch of fish.  They only eat things like pork on special occasions.

[edsanville]

They are also a rich source of insoluble fiber which basically acts like a wire brush on your intestines (corporations, and their scientists, who push insoluble fiber actually say that intestinal damage is good for the gut.). Soluble fiber is better.

Now this is also new to me.  I've read that insoluble and soluble fiber are both beneficial.  Where did you read that insoluble fiber damages the intestines?

I occasionally juice vegetables with a touch of fruit (to make it palatable).  One of my main concerns was that juicing removes the insoluble fiber from the vegetables.  If insoluble fiber is detrimental, this would imply that juicing actually enhances vegetables, because it leaves the soluble fiber intact.