A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Fruits are great for you!". Really?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 20th, 2010, 11:58 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Orlando Enrique Fiol
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default "Fruits are great for you!". Really?

Doug Freyburger wrote:
The idea that fruits are good is fine for someone who's never gotten fat
in the first place. It's a load of nonsense for those of us have gotten
fat.


I highly doubt that people have actually gotten fat from fruit as their only
carbohydrate source. Most people get fat from eating refined sugars, flour and
high starch root vegetables.

What's a fruit? It's a vegitable that grew a fancy outfit and
added sugar to itself.


Which seems entirely natural in terms of evolution.

Fruits are great for folks who think french fries count against their
daily 5 servings of veggies. Have you even seen what a serving is? The
salads I often have with dinner are tiny but they count as 2 servings!
I come closer to 10 servings of veggies per day than to 5 when I take
into account the tiny size of a serving. To think that some folks eat a
medium serving of fries at Burger King and count it as their 5 servings
for the day, no matter even something as bad as a banana is supposed to
be beneficial. But it isn't compared to real food. Bananas are candy
without being called that.



I resent the implication that a naturally occurring phenomenon such as fruit is
in your opinion not real food. Strictly speaking, real food is food intended by
Nature to be eaten. There is no other purpose fro fruit besides human and
animal consumption, which is why it rots when left on trees for too long.
Animal flesh, milk, eggs and their byproducts, in contrast, take all manner of
processing to be consumed by humans. Nearly all cultures agree that fruit is
the most nutritious food group found in nature and entirely consumable raw. You
seem to be focused on fruit's sugar content, which I understand as a fellow
low-carber. But trust me, our obesity epidemic is not due to people eating too
many bananas, watermelons, pineapples or other high glyceride fruits.

Orlando
  #12  
Old April 21st, 2010, 01:43 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,790
Default "Fruits are great for you!". Really?

Leave off the bananas. Try blueberries and strawberries.

wrote in message
...
I almost felt asleep in the bus within an hour after having a smoothie
made of banana and strawberries. Coincidence or is it my insuline? We
are bombarbed in the media with the "Fruits are great for you""
messages. If they are, then why are they killing me like this?


  #13  
Old April 21st, 2010, 04:33 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Ophelia[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default "Fruits are great for you!". Really?

That's a relief! I am becoming addicted to blueberries In small amounts
I hasten to add!

err if I am permitted to add comment to these esteemed posters?

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
Leave off the bananas. Try blueberries and strawberries.

wrote in message
...
I almost felt asleep in the bus within an hour after having a smoothie
made of banana and strawberries. Coincidence or is it my insuline? We
are bombarbed in the media with the "Fruits are great for you""
messages. If they are, then why are they killing me like this?



--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

  #14  
Old April 21st, 2010, 07:15 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default "Fruits are great for you!". Really?

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

The idea that fruits are good is fine for someone who's never gotten fat
in the first place. It's a load of nonsense for those of us have gotten
fat.


I highly doubt that people have actually gotten fat from fruit as their only
carbohydrate source. Most people get fat from eating refined sugars, flour and
high starch root vegetables.


All well and good for those who never got fat in the first place.
Getting fat in the first place changes the situation. What once was
okay is no longer okay.

Fruits are great for folks who think french fries count against their
daily 5 servings of veggies. Have you even seen what a serving is? The
salads I often have with dinner are tiny but they count as 2 servings!
I come closer to 10 servings of veggies per day than to 5 when I take
into account the tiny size of a serving. To think that some folks eat a
medium serving of fries at Burger King and count it as their 5 servings
for the day, no matter even something as bad as a banana is supposed to
be beneficial. But it isn't compared to real food. Bananas are candy
without being called that.


I resent the implication that a naturally occurring phenomenon such as fruit is
in your opinion not real food.


I have no idea where you pulled such nonsense from. Bananas may be
fine for those who have never gotten fat in the first place. Getting
fat in the first place changes that. That's how illnesses often work.
Obesity is a disfunction of the metabolism and one of the symptoms of
that disorder, for those of us who succeed with low carb, is that some
foods that were harmless before we got fat in the first place are now
harmful. A food being real or not have liitle to do with that.

But just how beneficial are bananas even for those who have never got
fat in the first place? If we use the model of how foods work in the
wild then to eat bananas a person would have to search through a jungle
to find them. That includes climbing trees to evade leopards, throwing
sharp sticks at small animals, then encountering small numbers of banana
plants that happen to have non-ripe bananas ready for the eating.
That's not the story of a modern human eating a banana. And it's
definitely not the story of a modern human who has already gotten fat
and who therefore can't handle sugar in any quantity any more.

Someone who never got fat in the first place should not eat a pile of
bananas twice the size of their head because that much fruit will give
them the runs. Someone already fat and carb sensative should avoid the
first banana during their loss phases and possibly even during
maintenance depending on how carb sensative they are.
  #15  
Old April 21st, 2010, 09:20 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Orlando Enrique Fiol
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default "Fruits are great for you!". Really?

Doug Freyburger wrote:
All well and good for those who never got fat in the first place.
Getting fat in the first place changes the situation. What once was
okay is no longer okay.


That may be your plan, but I'm not prepared to give up on fruits entirely. I
can do without all processed sugars and starches, but not fruit.

Bananas may be fine for those who have never gotten fat in the first place.

Getting fat in the first place changes that. That's how illnesses often work.
Obesity is a disfunction of the metabolism and one of the symptoms of
that disorder, for those of us who succeed with low carb, is that some
foods that were harmless before we got fat in the first place are now
harmful.


It highly depends on each individual. For some, fruit consumption does not
impede weight loss and is therefore not harmful. For others, even one bite of
fruit can bring about a stall. There are so many contributing factors toward
obesity that it is ludicrous to single out fruits as being harmful merely
because they contain sugars. Once again, look at the kinds of diets that have
produced obesity; they do not consist of natural, raw and obviously unsweetened
fruits. I entirely understand your position that tolerable foods become harmful
after we get fat. But, nearly everyone on any flavor of low-carb diet struggles
with the inescapable reality that they don't want to eat strictly low-carb for
the rest of their lives. This is why all low-carb plans eventually include
fruits, vegetables and even some whole grains in their maintenance phases. What
you're suggesting works in an induction phase, but is not meant to be followed
for years.

But just how beneficial are bananas even for those who have never got
fat in the first place? If we use the model of how foods work in the
wild then to eat bananas a person would have to search through a jungle
to find them. That includes climbing trees to evade leopards, throwing
sharp sticks at small animals, then encountering small numbers of banana
plants that happen to have non-ripe bananas ready for the eating.
That's not the story of a modern human eating a banana. And it's
definitely not the story of a modern human who has already gotten fat
and who therefore can't handle sugar in any quantity any more.


By the same token, we should not eat meat without first chasing and hunting it.
I love your double standard. When I suggest that fruits are entirely natural
foods meant to be eaten by humans and animals alike, you reply that we no
longer eat fruits under natural conditions. Yet, you have no problem eating
vast quantities of meat that is raised, slaughtered, packaged and sold under
entirely unnatural conditions previously unknown to humanity.

Someone who never got fat in the first place should not eat a pile of
bananas twice the size of their head because that much fruit will give
them the runs. Someone already fat and carb sensative should avoid the
first banana during their loss phases and possibly even during
maintenance depending on how carb sensative they are.



Finally, you're talking sense.

Orlando
  #16  
Old April 21st, 2010, 11:18 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Billy[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default "Fruits are great for you!". Really?

In article ,
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

It highly depends on each individual. For some, fruit consumption does not
impede weight loss and is therefore not harmful. For others, even one bite of
fruit can bring about a stall. There are so many contributing factors toward
obesity that it is ludicrous to single out fruits as being harmful merely
because they contain sugars. Once again, look at the kinds of diets that have
produced obesity; they do not consist of natural, raw and obviously
unsweetened
fruits. I entirely understand your position that tolerable foods become
harmful
after we get fat. But, nearly everyone on any flavor of low-carb diet
struggles
with the inescapable reality that they don't want to eat strictly low-carb
for
the rest of their lives. This is why all low-carb plans eventually include
fruits, vegetables and even some whole grains in their maintenance phases.
What
you're suggesting works in an induction phase, but is not meant to be
followed
for years.


Check your BG, and only eat fruit that are in season-ish.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html
  #17  
Old April 22nd, 2010, 01:47 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default "Fruits are great for you!". Really?

On Apr 21, 4:20*pm, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
All well and good for those who never got fat in the first place.
Getting fat in the first place changes the situation. *What once was
okay is no longer okay.


That may be your plan, but I'm not prepared to give up on fruits entirely.. I
can do without all processed sugars and starches, but not fruit.

Bananas may be fine for those who have never gotten fat in the first place.


Getting fat in the first place changes that. That's how illnesses often work.

Obesity is a disfunction of the metabolism and one of the symptoms of
that disorder, for those of us who succeed with low carb, is that some
foods that were harmless before we got fat in the first place are now
harmful.


It highly depends on each individual. For some, fruit consumption does not
impede weight loss and is therefore not harmful. For others, even one bite of
fruit can bring about a stall. There are so many contributing factors toward
obesity that it is ludicrous to single out fruits as being harmful merely
because they contain sugars. Once again, look at the kinds of diets that have
produced obesity; they do not consist of natural, raw and obviously unsweetened
fruits. I entirely understand your position that tolerable foods become harmful
after we get fat. But, nearly everyone on any flavor of low-carb diet struggles
with the inescapable reality that they don't want to eat strictly low-carb for
the rest of their lives. This is why all low-carb plans eventually include
fruits, vegetables and even some whole grains in their maintenance phases.. What
you're suggesting works in an induction phase, but is not meant to be followed
for years.

But just how beneficial are bananas even for those who have never got
fat in the first place? *If we use the model of how foods work in the
wild then to eat bananas a person would have to search through a jungle
to find them. *That includes climbing trees to evade leopards, throwing
sharp sticks at small animals, then encountering small numbers of banana
plants that happen to have non-ripe bananas ready for the eating.
That's not the story of a modern human eating a banana. *And it's
definitely not the story of a modern human who has already gotten fat
and who therefore can't handle sugar in any quantity any more.


By the same token, we should not eat meat without first chasing and hunting it.
I love your double standard. When I suggest that fruits are entirely natural
foods meant to be eaten by humans and animals alike, you reply that we no
longer eat fruits under natural conditions. Yet, you have no problem eating
vast quantities of meat that is raised, slaughtered, packaged and sold under
entirely unnatural conditions previously unknown to humanity.

Someone who never got fat in the first place should not eat a pile of
bananas twice the size of their head because that much fruit will give
them the runs. *Someone already fat and carb sensative should avoid the
first banana during their loss phases and possibly even during
maintenance depending on how carb sensative they are.


Finally, you're talking sense.

Orlando



One major factor that you are overlooking here is that in terms of
carbs, today's banana has little resemblence to the banana of 5,000
years ago. The same is true with virtually every other fruit.
Today's fruits have been bred by man to be sweeter, bigger, tastier,
disease resistant, etc and in terms of the evolution clock, that has
essentially just happened. That changes everything. They are higher
in carbs and second, it's far easier to eat a whole lot of them
because they taste good. If you were presented with many of the
fruits from 5,000+ years ago today, you would likely spit most of them
out. Did you ever taste a wild grape versus today's seedless?

Also, how many fruits do you think were readily available to man?
Some were available occasionally, for brief periods, seasonally.
Those were the ones that didn't succumb to insects, disease, getting
eaten by wild animals, etc. Today we have supermarkets stocked with
the sweetest fruits imaginable available year round.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that you can't have some fruit
on a LC diet. And the better your choices as to which fruits, the more
you can have. But as others have done the math, that one fruit
smoothie contains close to an entire days worth of carbs for many
people on maintenance. A far better choice in terms of carb count
would be a cup of strawberries with some whipped cream on top.
  #18  
Old April 22nd, 2010, 05:19 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default "Fruits are great for you!". Really?

wrote:
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:


By the same token, we should not eat meat without first chasing and hunting it.
I love your double standard. When I suggest that fruits are entirely natural
foods meant to be eaten by humans and animals alike, you reply that we no
longer eat fruits under natural conditions. Yet, you have no problem eating
vast quantities of meat that is raised, slaughtered, packaged and sold under
entirely unnatural conditions previously unknown to humanity.


One major factor that you are overlooking here


What's missing to me is the fact that the OP is in the first couple of
weeks but when I took that into account the reason was maintenance or
later in the loss phases. Early on nearly every plan is stricter so my
discussion started based on that fact. The context of the OP matters.

is that in terms of
carbs, today's banana has little resemblence to the banana of 5,000
years ago. The same is true with virtually every other fruit.
Today's fruits have been bred by man to be sweeter, bigger, tastier,
disease resistant, etc and in terms of the evolution clock, that has
essentially just happened. That changes everything. They are higher
in carbs and second, it's far easier to eat a whole lot of them
because they taste good. If you were presented with many of the
fruits from 5,000+ years ago today, you would likely spit most of them
out. Did you ever taste a wild grape versus today's seedless?

Also, how many fruits do you think were readily available to man?
Some were available occasionally, for brief periods, seasonally.
Those were the ones that didn't succumb to insects, disease, getting
eaten by wild animals, etc. Today we have supermarkets stocked with
the sweetest fruits imaginable available year round.


I agree with Orlando Enrique Fiol on the issue of farmed products.
Ranched animals are also farmed products and that needs to be taken into
account. Human evolution is a varied and uncertain story. About 5
million years ago we went from tree dwelling apes with a high percentage
of fruit for calories through a transition to the peak predator on the
planet spread somewhere across that next 5 million years, to a herding
species under 50K years ago who ate a much less varied list of prey
animals to a farming species under 20K years ago who ate far more grain
than was good for us, to an industrial junk food species in the last
couple of centuries. Since it takes around 5 million years of steady
diet to evolve it to optimal and humans have not had that, humans don't
have any optimal diet. But the closest we have to it is hunter gatherer
cultures who eat varied lean hunted meats, who walk several hours per
day and who eat wildly varying plant foods across the year.

Herding across the millenia went from keeping wild herds for food to
breeding herds for docility to breeding herds for fat and only in the
last century to breeding herds for lean. The level of fat in regularly
accessible meats does not match the ancient approximation for the
evolutionary optimal that doesn't exist - That's a lot of levels of
approximation. So is more or less fat better? Probably less, and
definitely grass fed not grain fed. The modern movement for grass fed
leaner meats is a good idea.

So why do I stress high fat percentage then? Because hunter gatherer
society members spend nearly their entire lives hungry and they are
hungry because they have no choice in the matter. They walk several
hours per day because they have no choice in the matter. A modern
person has the option to not be hungry except at specific times, and a
modern person has the option of doing so little exercise they get sick
from lack of it.

Thus I do the arithmetic of estimating total calories to lose without
being hungry, the expected best levels of protein grams, the common
optimal levels of carb grams for loss or maintenance, and then the rest
of the calories come from fat. The result is food with a high
percentage of calories from fat. It doesn't match the evolutionary
argument and it's right to question the point. It is a double standard
and it does have to be explained. Anyone wishing to live the hunter
gatherer life style will be able to do better than the way I describe
low carbing by chosing to be dirt poor, stressed and hungry nearly every
day of their lives.

In fact there are longevity issues that suggest once the weight has been
lost to go back to the lower carb levels of the loss phases and also
taper down the fat intake. How to do that without endless hunger is an
open topic - The monkeys in reduced calorie lifespan studies are clearly
hungry every minute of every day and night. Are their lives really
longer or do they just seem longer for the extra hunger? It looks like
both.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that you can't have some fruit
on a LC diet. And the better your choices as to which fruits, the more
you can have. But as others have done the math, that one fruit
smoothie contains close to an entire days worth of carbs for many
people on maintenance. A far better choice in terms of carb count
would be a cup of strawberries with some whipped cream on top.


Also early on nearly every plan is lower carb and the OP
is in the first month of a restart. What carb
grams to have during maintenance is not today's topic yet.
  #19  
Old April 22nd, 2010, 06:16 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Billy[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default "Fruits are great for you!". Really?

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

About 5
million years ago we went from tree dwelling apes with a high percentage
of fruit for calories through a transition to the peak predator on the
planet spread somewhere across that next 5 million years, to a herding
species under 50K years ago who ate a much less varied list of prey
animals to a farming species under 20K years ago who ate far more grain
than was good for us, to an industrial junk food species in the last
couple of centuries. Since it takes around 5 million years of steady
diet to evolve it to optimal and humans have not had that, humans don't
have any optimal diet. But the closest we have to it is hunter gatherer
cultures who eat varied lean hunted meats, who walk several hours per
day and who eat wildly varying plant foods across the year.


I've read many accounts that hunter gatherers spent less than 20 hr./wk
in foraging food. I'm sure some spent more. Some spent less. Where does
this 50K for herding come from? It's news to me. 10K ago is the usual
number given for the beginning of agriculture. The industrial revolution
started about 300 years ago, but junk food made from ubiquitous white,
wheat flour is only about a century old and only wide spread in the last
50 years.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html
  #20  
Old April 22nd, 2010, 06:33 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Billy[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default "Fruits are great for you!". Really?

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

About 5
million years ago we went from tree dwelling apes with a high percentage
of fruit for calories through a transition to the peak predator on the
planet spread somewhere across that next 5 million years, to a herding
species under 50K years ago who ate a much less varied list of prey
animals to a farming species under 20K years ago who ate far more grain
than was good for us, to an industrial junk food species in the last
couple of centuries. Since it takes around 5 million years of steady
diet to evolve it to optimal and humans have not had that, humans don't
have any optimal diet. But the closest we have to it is hunter gatherer
cultures who eat varied lean hunted meats, who walk several hours per
day and who eat wildly varying plant foods across the year.


I've read many accounts that hunter gatherers spent less than 20 hr./wk
in foraging food. I'm sure some spent more. Some spent less. Where does
this 50K for herding come from? It's news to me. 10K ago is the usual
number given for the beginning of agriculture. The industrial revolution
started about 300 years ago, but junk food made from ubiquitous white,
wheat flour is only about a century old and only wide spread in the last
50 years.


I forgot to mention Le Roque St. Christoph, continuously occupied for
50,000 years!
http://www.roque-st-christophe.com/#
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BLIMPS REJOICE! "Grilled" At KFC Means You Can Gobble More Pieces OfChicken Than The Original "Boogies On A Bone" Fried Artery-Cloggers! Lil' Barb General Discussion 2 November 25th, 2009 09:47 AM
BUSH NATION: 36.2 Million Human Beings HUNGRY! Your "CompassionateConservative" Says, "Hell, Ah'm Retirin' Soon." Kilicrankie P. Smith General Discussion 2 November 19th, 2008 05:10 PM
"Friends are born, not made." !!!! By: "Henry Brooks Adams" [email protected] Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 February 1st, 2007 05:27 PM
Mark Twain's "Smoking is Good for You" , and "Being Fat Can SaveYour Life" Jbuch Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 January 20th, 2007 04:20 PM
define "healthy" or "fit" or "athletic" oregonchick General Discussion 7 September 16th, 2006 12:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.