If Fructose is Bad, What about Fruit?

What About All the Sugar in Fruit?

If the fructose in sugar and high fructose corn syrup has been consideredalcohol without the buzz” in terms of the potential to inflict liver damage, what about the source of natural fructose, fruit?

If you compare the effects of a diet restricting fructose from both added sugars and fruit to one just restricting fructose from added sugars, the diet that kept the fruit did better. People lost more weight with the extra fruit present than if all fructose was restricted. Only industrial, not fruit fructose intake, was associated with declining liver function and high blood pressure. Fructose from added sugars was associated with hypertension; fructose from natural fruits is not.

If we have people drink a glass of water with three tablespoons of table sugar in it, which is like a can of soda, they get a big spike in blood sugar within the first hour (as you can see in my video If Fructose Is Bad, What About Fruit?). Our body freaks out and releases so much insulin we actually overshoot, and by the second hour we’re relatively hypoglycemic, dropping our blood sugar below where it was when we started out. In response, our body dumps fat into our blood stream as if we’re starving, because our blood sugars just dropped so low so suddenly.

What if you eat blended berries in addition to the sugar? They have sugars of their own in them; in fact, an additional tablespoon of sugar worth; so, the blood sugar spike should be worse, right?

Not only was there no additional blood sugar spike, there was no hypoglycemic dip afterwards. Blood sugar just went up and down without that overshoot and without the surge of fat into the blood.

This difference may be attributed to the semisolid consistency of the berry meals, which may have decreased the rate of stomach emptying compared with just guzzling sugar water. In addition, the soluble fiber in the berries has a gelling effect in our intestines that slows the release of sugars. To test to see if it was the fiber, researchers repeated the experiment with berry juice that had all the sugar but none of the fiber. A clear difference was observed early on in the blood sugar insulin responses. At the 15-minute mark, the blood sugar spike was significantly reduced by the berry meals, but not by the juices, but the rest of the beneficial responses were almost the same between the juice and the whole fruit, suggesting that fiber may just be part of it. It turns out there are fruit phytonutrients that inhibit the transportation of sugars through the intestinal wall into our blood stream. Phytonutrients in foods like apples and strawberries can block some of the uptake of sugars by the cells lining our intestines.

Adding berries can actually blunt the insulin spike from high glycemic foods. For example, white bread creates a big insulin spike within two hours after eating it. Eat that same white bread with some berries, though, and we’re able to blunt the spike. So, even though we’ve effectively added more sugars in the form of berries, there’s less of an insulin spike, which has a variety of potential short and long-term benefits. So, if you’re going to make pancakes, make sure they’re blueberry pancakes.

Surprised about the juice results? Me too! More on juice:

A few videos I have on industrial sugars:

How else can we blunt the glycemic spike?

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations—2013: Uprooting the Leading Causes of DeathMore Than an Apple a Day2014: From Table to Able: Combating Disabling Diseases with Food, 2015: Food as Medicine: Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet, and my latest, 2016: How Not To Die: The Role of Diet in Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers.


Michael Greger M.D., FACLM

Michael Greger, M.D. FACLM, is a physician, New York Times bestselling author, and internationally recognized professional speaker on a number of important public health issues. Dr. Greger has lectured at the Conference on World Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the International Bird Flu Summit, testified before Congress, appeared on The Dr. Oz Show and The Colbert Report, and was invited as an expert witness in defense of Oprah Winfrey at the infamous "meat defamation" trial.

110 responses to “What About All the Sugar in Fruit?

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. It’s good to know that the phytonutrients and fiber in fruit reduce blood sugar spikes. However, those studies were done with berries, which are very low glycemic and really high in phytonutrients. I’m thinking that higher glycemic fruits that are also lower in phytonutrients like mangoes, bananas and pineapple, would not blunt the sugar spike near as well as the berries.

    1. I had high blood sugar years ago and since I ate a lot of plant foods, it’s now gone. But initially whenever I eat some fruits such as banana or apple or even blueberries, my sugar spikes. It took a while to “fix my body” but it no longer does and I eat a lot of fruits these day without any problem. My A1C is not super low but it is around 6 and I think it’s good enough but I would rather eat fruits than being obsessed to make my A1C to go down to 5 like it should be. Like I used to say, the benefits outweigh the risks.

    2. Note the SPIKE isn’t as much of a problem as the DROP. There is always a “spike” when your body needs to deal with intake of things regardless of what. The problem comes when the spike is so high that the body overestimates the need for insulin causing excess insulin and a big drop in blood sugar.

      I did a glucose test on myself last year after some people were saying I was killing myself with my smoothies. I do tend to have at least some strawberries in every fruit meal. Here is what I ate and my test results:
      On 4/1/2015 for breakfast I had
      7 medium bananas
      1/2 cup of frozen mango chunks
      1/2 cup of frozen strawberries
      2 tbsp of organic coconut sugar
      2 liters of water
      ^^ Smoothie
      1 plain bagel.
      ~1171 kcal 284g carbs (145g sugar, 26g fiber) 4.8g fat, 20.5g protein

      My fasting glucose was 84, and I did a 2.2 mile run 2 hours before breakfast.
      My glucose before breakfast was: 87
      My smoothie is split into 2 jugs of around 30oz each.
      My glucose after the first jug was (just over 1 hour after starting):107
      My glucose after the second jug and the bagel was (about 2 hours after starting breakfast):99
      My glucose before lunch was (~3 hours after breakfast): 91

  2. There is a rainbow of health with fruits. Many fruits been humanly designed for maximum sweetness, which translate in sales. Read the book “Eating on the Wild Side” for a detailed account. Also, some berries reduce the gut permeability chemically but not the rest of fruits.

    1. I only buy organic fruits these day and wild when available such as blueberries. But you are right, those fruits grown in greenhouse and designed for sweetness are no good. Not only they are full of sugar but they are deprived of phytonutrients. To tell that a fruit is truly organic, you see that their size is smaller and irregular (so called ugly fruits) and they have a few insect marks.

      1. It goes deeper. Most if not almost all fruits (including organic, supermarket, etc) are modern (1900s). They were made by humans and they were never part of the human diet till recent. A modern fruit, even if organic, is sweeter and bigger. By in large, they have succeeded in fooling people in believing they come from nature.

        1. I agree. Most if not all of our fruits and vegetables were bred to produce more sweet and less bitter produce. I read that broccoli didn’t exist in nature but it is a breed of several vegetables. But we are where we are and eating organic is as close as we can get to the original produce.

          1. Yeap, bitter foods (greens and fruits) were a big part of the true ‘original’ human diet. The skin vs flesh ratio was also higher. The original fruit had more phytonutrient content and less sugar.

            1. I understand the arguments from both sides. On one hand we are more concerned about nutrition and therefore we don’t mind eating fruits that taste bitter or sour but on the other hand for commercial market, you cannot sell this kind of fruits. A lot of people don’t even eat (sweet) fruits let alone if they don’t taste good.

              In general, I would say that with the current state of foods availability coupled with the polluted environment around us, most people can achieve a long and healthy life if they eat right. I don’t want to have a long but uncomfortable life :)

  3. Thanks great info and just what I’ve been thinking about recently.

    I have PCOS and have had issues with insulin resistance – im wondering if I can eat fruit freely and enjoy the diversity out there?

    I would certainly love to know I’m healing my body with fruit and not making myself worse .

  4. Durianrider from Australia has been consuming what appears to be a high amount of fruit, juice and refined sugar for many years now. It should be interesting to see whether this Kempener like diet combined with very active lifestyle may lead to sustained health for him.

      1. The sugar composition of bananas could change with ripeness. For example, look into resistant starches, which escape digestion, in medium ripe bananas.

      1. So, I assume that high glycemic foods like bananas and other fruit are not going to raise your tryglycerides which might add plaque to your arteries. I ask this because Dr. Mercola recommends eating only one piece of fruit per day because of the fructose. But, then again there are fruititarians that eat a lot of fruit everyday, and they seem to function OK at least for a short term. I am not sure about the long term.

        1. John Axsom: Julot may know more than I, but I thought I would jump in here.
          Thank you for clarifying your thoughts. If I remember correctly, I have seen some of our medical volunteers talk about how for *some* people, fruit seems to be a problem for tryglycerides. It did not sound like it is a problem for most people, though I have no idea what “some” or “most” is. From what I gather from answers in the past, the recommendation would be to start with a normal WPFB diet such as the one recommended by Dr. Greger or PCRM, which would include fruit. And then if after time goes by and everything looks good except tryglycerides, then see what happens if you eliminate the fruit.
          The idea is: You don’t want to start with fruit elimination because of the many benefits of eating fruit. You only want to eliminate or restrict fruit if you have a specific problem with it. Similar to someone abstaining from peanuts if they have peanut allergy. For most people, peanuts are healthy. But for some, best to stay away.
          What do you think?

          1. What you say makes a lot of sense. Everyone is different, and each person has to determine what they are sensitive to and not sensitive to. Actually, for myself, about one year ago I had pretty high triglycerides. At that time I was a Mercola fan, but now no longer, and I was wondering if fruit was my problem. At that time I was eating eggs, meat, cheese, nuts, seeds, avocados, and other fatty foods. Of course my total cholesterol and LDL were also high. So, after awhile I discovered Dr. Greger on YouTube and I gradually opened up to him with some internal resistance, but, eventually I saw the “light”. After, going on a whole plant food diet, I reluctantly started eating more fruit. And over a period of one year my triglycerides did come down with all the other lipid profiles while eating fruit. My triglycerides are now 114 which is a good distance from the recommended cut off point of 150. I just posed the question to see if there was any other insight into this challenge that Mercola has given on the idea that one should avoid fructose like the plague. I think your explanation helps one to understand the “fruit / triglyceride” question which is that everyone is different and each person has to rule out what is good for them and what is not good for them by education, process of elimination, and other feedback mechanisms such as having blood work done once every 4 months, and sonograms of their arteries about once per year.

  5. from the article above: “At the 15-minute mark, the blood sugar spike was significantly reduced by the berry meals, but not by the juices, but the rest of the beneficial responses were almost the same between the juice and the whole fruit, suggesting that fiber may just be part of it. It turns out there are fruit phytonutrients that inhibit the transportation of sugars through the intestinal wall into our blood stream.”
    I interpret this to mean that if we had to guess: jam/jelly even though having a lot of added sugar and maybe even lacking in some of the fiber may not be as bad for us as the sugar content would have us believe. The added sugar is still empty calories (and calorie dense empty calories at that), but it seems that the detrimental effects of the jam might be quite blunted.
    Anyone who cares to offer an opinion: Do you think I have that right?

    1. I’m certainly not an expert nutritionist, but I came to the same interpretation as you did on reading the article. There’s more to the blunting effect of whole fruits than just the fiber. So if jam/jellys are made from whole fruit or berries, the other phytonutrients would contribute to the blunting effect.

      1. Thanks HaltheVegan! I like trying to take what we know and apply it as best we can to what wasn’t actually tested. I brought up this question, because I always thought of jelly/jam as being particularly bad for one. Basically just flavored sugar. But if there really is enough actual fruit or even fruit juice, then maybe not so, so terrible. This thought is surprising to me. Thanks for you 2 cents!

        1. Yep, I know what you mean. It can get really complicated trying to figure how to extrapolate knowledge from these research experiments. When buying jelly or jam or preserves now (after visiting this site for several years), I always look for the one that contains the most real whole fruit or berry!

    2. Thea, there is a problem with jam and jelly–they are cooked! As much as 97% of anthocyanins are lost when strawberries are turned into strawberry jam. (I just read about this in “How Not to Die”, page 294)

      1. VegGuy: Nice point! (Thanks for the page number.) I have read all of How Not To Die once and parts of it multiple times. But I still don’t remember it all (or maybe even most, that book is so dang packed with info).
        So, in light of the issue on the table, would the key question be: Are the anthocyamins the particular phytonutrients which helps us regulate the sugar effects when we eat sugar with fruit/berries? We know that part of the help is the fiber and that would not be destroyed with cooking. So, maybe jam is still not that bad…? Just saying.

  6. My brain has another dilemma: from the article above: “Only industrial, not fruit fructose intake, was associated with declining liver function and high blood pressure. Fructose from added sugars was associated with hypertension; fructose from natural fruits is not.”
    I tried looking at the two linked studies, but didn’t get very far in trying to resolve my question/confusion. Here’s what I’m thinking of: If I understood correctly, Kempner’s diet consisted of white rice, fruit, and in some cases even added (table) sugar. AND his diet helped “cure malignant hypertension”.
    Humans don’t usually eat table sugar by the spoonful by itself. (It doesn’t even taste good. I’ve tried it…) We usually eat table sugar with something: in drinks, with our rice/fruit diet, in our cookies, to balance our spicy pasta sauce, over our grapefruit, etc. So, eating added sugar with rice and fruit is not a problem. If grapefruit works like berries, eating added sugar on our grapefruit may not be much of a problem (at least in terms of blood pressure). On the other hand, eating added table sugar as part of a soda is a big problem. So, maybe the real problem is what we eat the sugar with? In other words, is the key health issue only how much added sugar is in our diet? Or is the key health issue : what are we eating our added sugar with?
    Could the solution to my question be a question of dose? I don’t know how much added sugar Kempner’s diet included. So, I don’t know if maybe it was a trivial amount compared to how much the average American is consuming today. That’s one thought I had.
    Anyone who cares to comment: What do you think? Am I missing something?

    1. Again, I’m not a nutritionist, but I think the key health issue is between eating refined sugar by itself or in a soda drink vs eating it with a whole fruit or berry. The insulin spike imbalance would come with the isolated sugar consumption, but not if eaten with a whole fruit or berry because of both the fiber and the phytonutrients. I would think that the quantity of sugar consumed would come into play more on a long term basis when the total calories eaten were much greater than that used up by energy expenditure.

      1. HaltheVegan: Thanks again for weighing in. I think what you are saying is that if Kempner’s diet included putting sugar on the berries/fruit, then the results are really no different than what Dr. Greger posted about in his article above. So, nothing new here.
        Let me try to clarify what I’m trying to get at. (This got long. So, feel free to ignore if you don’t want to read it. I’m just having fun with some thought experiments.)
        The title of the article is, “What about all the sugar in fruit?” And that’s really the question that comes up a lot for people around here. And that question was well answered in my opinion. Sugar in fruit is not much to worry about, all else being equal.
        But I think the article also might be considered an answer to another question that no one really ever asks, because we all think the answer is obvious and well, “Doh”: Is table sugar bad for us? One of the proposed(?) changes to the American nutrition labels is adding a line for “Added sugar”. I’m trying to make the point/explore the idea that not all added sugar is equally bad for us. That added sugar may only be really bad for us in the context of what we are adding the sugar to. Thus, maybe a line for ‘Added sugar’ on American nutrition labels is way too simple and misleading.
        The article above talks about how fiber is only part of the equation, but it *is* part of the equation. So, maybe adding sugar to any whole plant food is not that bad. Beans have a lot of fiber. There are vegan recipes out there now for chocolate frosting or fudge dip that are mostly made up of beans, coco powder, and sugar. Yes, it’s dessert. It’s high calorie. But the sugar is added to *beans.* Maybe that’s healthier than one might think even though there is a lot of sugar. And maybe beans and other whole foods have the same or similar magic properties that fruit has even disregarding the fiber. I hope a lot more studies are done on this topic.
        So, again, maybe “added sugars” to any old whole foods is not a problem and should not be treated the same as “added sugars” to cookies and soda. Should a WFPB eater worry about added sugar in a sauce recipe? I know some people think that’s really bad. But dose/amounts aside, I’m wondering if added sugar to a sauce made out of beans is really not a health problem. Sprinkling sugar on sour fruit? Eating candied ginger? I wonder.
        If you made it this far, thanks for listening. :-)

        1. Hey, don’t worry about your explanation being too long. I enjoy pursuing thought experiments, too! This website keeps me thinking quite a bit. And I think you’re on to something here. I tend to agree that reasonable amounts of sugar eaten with just about any substantial whole foods (like beans) would not be really harmful. Like you say, it’s when it’s added to foods that are already highly processed (like cookies) that it becomes problematic. So I agree that for a WFPB eater, a little added sugar eaten with whole foods shouldn’t be a problem. In fact, I’m “guilty” of eating a few pieces of candied ginger and candied Amla on a daily basis because it’s convenient and my weight, blood sugar (A1C), and BP are always within the normal (even low) range. Thanks for bringing up this interesting topic. I must say, I probably would never have wandered down this fascinating road if you hadn’t brought the subject up :-)

          1. HaltheVegan: Candied amla! I’ve never heard of that before. So interesting.
            Thanks for your added thoughts. It helps me put my own thoughts in order. I agree, this site really keeps us thinking.

            1. Yes, I get the candied amla (Indian Gooseberry) at a local Indian grocery store. I tried the canned and also the frozen variety, but the candied version is much more convenient.

    2. It remains to be my understanding that berries and some other fruits contain components that help to regulate sugar uptake in the digestion process. This regulation matches the bodies response system to sugar intake such that insulin production called for more closely matches the actual need of the body. (When you just eat sugar water, the body tends to overshoot insulin production)

      Perhaps anecdotal, though I do recall seeing evidence in a study once (can’t recall the study) that this regulation effect occurs for any sugars carried in at the same time as the fruits that improve regulation.

      Such that if you eat a bowl of raspberries, and then down a glass sugar water, your bodies insulin response will be better and more accurate than if you just drank the sugar water. As to how much sugar water you can intake before the dampening of the berries is no longer working, that likely is very specific to a particular person. Both in how fast they digest the berries, as well as their bodies ability to respond.

      1. MikeOnRaw: That all sounds right to me. However, those special components in fruit doesn’t mean that other foods don’t also contain those or similar components or that fiber isn’t also part of the solution.
        If you are interested, here in a clarification of what I was trying to get at (I just wasn’t too clear in my first post), see this follow up comment: http://nutritionfacts.org/2016/08/09/what-about-all-the-sugar-in-fruit/#comment-2829374614

        And thank you for your reply!

  7. Michael I would be very interested to hear your understanding of FODMAPs. I was diagnosed a couple of years ago through breath testing to be intolerant of many of these sugars. I have predominantly been a plant based eater ever since. Fructose and Oligo’s in particular cause me grief. Thanks. Jenni

    1. The fact is you stopped eating sweet fruit, did you drop dead? Are you sick? If not maybe you don’t need them, just like soda. Just look up the low glycemic index/ load fruits. eat less than one cup each day of those and you are fine. Limes and lemons in water are fine also btw.

      1. John Wilson: Equating fruit to soda makes no sense. Soda has a body of evidence showing it is unhealthy. The body of scientific evidence supporting the health value of whole fruit consumption is overwhelming: everything from fighting cancer to gout to heart disease and more. For a summary of the topic check out the following page. You can click through to get individual videos-of-the-day, which will include all the references to the source studies if you want to follow through. http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/fruit/

        1. Ok let me revise that, if you slim and have no weight problems then by all means eat tropical fruits in moderation. If you are in fact overweight like most Americans. Stay away, they much more harm than good. Get you nutrients elsewhere. Many of these people are pre-diabetic, your advise will have them on meds in a few years.
          Sweet fruit and carbs in general are being way oversold to the American public.

          1. John Wilson: We try to stick to the science here. I am not aware of evidence that eating fruit contributes to weight gain – quite the opposite. (see: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-ice-diet/ and http://nutritionfacts.org/video/eating-more-to-weigh-less/ ) If you click on the link I provided in the post above, you will see how much good fruit does for human health. It’s amazing.
            Also, eating fruit does not contribute to diabetes. If you would like to know what causes diabetes, this NutritionFacts video is a great start: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-causes-diabetes/

            1. Thea the question is, if you are overweight/insulin resistant are you better off sticking to lower sugar fruits/mostly lower sugar fruits?

              Is there really a study saying that (to pick an extreme example) e.g. eating 5 portions of berries/day is not better/worse than eating the same calories in e.g. bananas for people who are overweight/insulin resistant?

              1. Berner11: I was addressing a slightly different question, but I’m happy to address your question.

                I don’t know if there is such a study or not. But I don’t think that is the issue for a few reasons. First, even for a general diet recommendation for the general person, Dr. Greger’s Daily Dozen includes only 4 servings of fruit a day, one of which is restricted to berries and 3 of which can be any kind of fruit.

                You may think I am missing the point. ie: ” So, then what about a study that compares 3 servings of fruits based on their placement on the glycemic index!” My point is that most plant based experts are not recommending a diet that focuses on fruit. They are not generally recommending a diet that focuses on any one of the 4 main food groups (fruit, veggies, intact grains, and beans). They are recommending a diet that includes all of these foods. So, a study that focuses only on fruit without addressing the cause of T2 diabetes and people on diets known to reverse T2 diabetes would be irrelevant.

                So, let’s talk about diets *proven* to reverse T2 diabetes. What kinds of fruits can a person incorporate into their day? My go-to book for T2 diabetes questions is “Dr. Neal Barnard’s Program for Reversing Diabetes: The Scientifically Proven System for Reversing Diabetes without Drugs” https://www.amazon.com/Neal-Barnards-Program-Reversing-Diabetes/dp/1594868107/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1470845421&sr=8-1&keywords=prevent+and+reverse+diabetes Dr. Barnard has published studies in peer reviewed journals showing his diet is 3 times more effective at reversing T2 diabetes compared to the ADA diet.

                I did some research on the fruit question just for you. Page 84 says: “Fresh fruit. Fresh fruit is a perfect snack, and you will want to keep it on hand…” There’s no restriction on type of fruit mentioned on that page.

                The second part of that book includes recipes. I looked through them for you. For breakfast, you could have whole grains with chopped fruit or a fruit smoothie. For lunch or dinner you might have Orange Quinoa and Bulgur Tabbouleh (that includes orange slices). For dessert, you might have chocolate-dipped strawberries (using a fat-free chocolate they recommend), cranberry-orange-pear granola crisp, or pineapple sherbet pops.

                Did all or even most of the recipes include fruit? No. But the point is that fresh fruit does not cause diabetes. Fresh fruit lowers the risk of getting diabetes (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/if-white-rice-is-linked-to-diabetes-what-about-china/) And if you already have diabetes, Dr. Barnard has proven that fresh fruit can be a great part of your diet. It can be especially good to include fresh fruit if you have a weight issue. Whole, fresh fruit typically has relatively low calorie density – the main factor to consider when it comes to weight issues.

                Bottom Line: If I had a close friend or relative who was overweight and had insulin resistance, I would give them a copy of Dr. Barnard’s book. And by following the diet in that book, they would probably find themselves including fresh fruit in their diet. And they would help themselves because of it. Doesn’t really matter what kind of fruit as near as I can tell, because as T2 diabetics get the fat out of their cells by following a healthy diet, their insulin resistance would start to go back to normal.

                I hope that’s helpful.

                1. Somewhat related is the topic of sugar cravings. I wonder if sometimes these cravings are really “fruit cravings” in disguise and whether fruit consumption leads to lower donut consumption.

                  1. sf_jeff: :-) Maybe! I like the thinking.
                    I don’t know the answer, but I have two thoughts on that idea. My first thought is that people who go on a whole plant food based (WPFB) diet have reported that fruit starts to taste very sweet, because taste buds have been re-calibrated. So, fruit *can*/potentially fill that sweet tooth for people, no doubt.
                    My second thought is that I don’t know how well it would work outside the context of a whole plant food diet. If you are still eating a calorie-dense diet and just try to add some fruit to that, I think the body would still a) not be satisfied with less calorie dense foods and b) the fruit would not taste sweet enough to substitute for say (one of my downfalls!!!!!) donuts.
                    Those are just my first thoughts. I don’t necessarily have hard data to back it up. I’m just talking. What do you think?

                    1. My personal experience has been that it is easier to keep to a diet drinking coffee, tea, and herbal teas frequently. I assume that fruit should have a similar effect. The idea wasn’t one of taste recalibrating so much as one of quieting the overall “Jonesing for sugar” phenomenon that would include a bit of ADHD, a bit of annoyance at the world, and food-related memory interruptions.


                      So, it is not the calories in the fruit that would need to satisfy the body so much as micronutrients that are correlated. At least that would be the idea.

                    2. May I suggest one example to illustrate your point, especially bearing in mind John Wilson’s apparent view that there is very little difference between the effects of fructose-containing HFCS and the fructose from sweet fruits? This concerns the vast array of nutrients in whole fruit that are not found in HFCS. These latter are obviously not biologically inert and will modify the effects of fructose from those fruits.

                      One such example is simple old vitamin C. There is of course no vitamin C in HFCS unlike say pineapples …………………

                      “CONCLUSIONS Although the regression coefficients were in general not very large, these results indicate that a high intake of fat, especially that of saturated fatty acids, contributes to the risk of glucose intolerance and NIDDM. Foods such as fish, potatoes, vegetables, and legumes may have a protective effect. In addition, the observed inverse association between vitamin C and glucose intolerance suggests that antioxidants may also play a role in the development of derangements in glucose metabolism.”

              2. Actually berries have a surprisingly high taste/sugar ratio. You can eat a lot more of them then you would expect while staying under your calorie budget for the day.

                Also, to add to Thea’s remarks below, the effects of diet on the underlying diabetes disease and the effects of diet on the damage diabetes does to the rest of the body can work in opposite directions. The same low-glycemic diets which prevent diabetes flare-ups may at the same time be making the underlying disease worse.

                To prevent short term damage from diabetes or pre-diabetes you would probably be best off removing fruit juice from your diet temporarily and only getting whole fruit in your diet, or possibly even fruit plus fiber combos like oatmeal with fruit, etc. When you get the disease under control you can be far more careless.

                Please note that this is quite different from avoiding fruit.

      2. I’m not sure I am following your train of thought John. Clearly I am not dead! But I am struggling to regain weight I have lost and very low energy levels. I do eat berries, bananas, citrus fruits, but don’t tolerate high fodmap fruits such as apples, pears etc. onions and garlic are also definite no go for me.

            1. If your “reputable” sources will not help, trying an unharmful alternative may. Surely eating more vegetables and healthy meats and oils and less carbs/sugar must be dangerous. lets all pound 16 ounces of orange juice vs eating some kale, that must be better.

              1. John Wilson: The reputable sources do help. That’s the point.

                It’s best to stay away from strawmen arguments. No one is recommending orange juice over kale. You will notice I talk about eating fruit, not drinking it… Whole, fresh oranges along with other fresh fruits, on the other hand,
                are a great addition to a diet that also includes dark leafy greens,
                other veggies, intact grains, beans, and mushrooms.

                FYI: There are no healthy meats or oils. Eating those foods are harmful to your health. You could research those topics on this site if you want the evidence to back up that statement.

                I recommend spending some time on this site. I could point you to some summary videos which would be extremely helpful in giving you the bit picture. It is a great to start to educate yourself. Let me know if you are interested.

                  1. John Wilson: I’ve given you a lot of references/information to check out on the topic of diabetes. I’ve essentially already answered your question.

                    After you have had some time to digest the information, we could talk again.

                    1. John Wilson: Did you read that study? Did you notice that even in the abstract, they are talking about high fructose corn syrup? They mention fruit later on, but it isn’t all that relevant. In fact, here is part of the researchers’ conclusion:

                      “The consumption of fruit and vegetables should continue to be encouraged because of the resulting increased intake of fiber, micronutrients, and antioxidants. In addition, the intake of naturally occurring fructose is low, ≈15 g/d, and is unlikely to contribute significantly to the untoward metabolic consequences associated with the consumption of large amounts of fructose.”

                      The entire point of Dr. Greger’s blog post is that the body reacts differently to added sugars than it does to whole fruits. I don’t see how the study you found supports your belief that whole fruits lead to weight gain or other harm, especially in the context of a whole plant food diet.

                      I’ve done you the courtesy of reviewing the references you have given me. How about you review the content of some of the references I have given you over the last few days? If you give it a good go and it makes sense to you, then I’d be interested in how you reconcile this new information with the information you have been given in the past.

        1. Do you eat whole grains? How about bread to help gain weight? I, too, have struggled to put on weight and I think it has had something to do with past high-FODMAP fruit ingestion.

          1. Kinda depends what kind of weight do you want muscle, or a layer of fat. sumo wrestlers get that way by rice and beer. It may be your goal but most Americans do not need it.

    2. “When testing for fructose malabsorption, 25–50 g of fructose dissolved in 150–250 ml of water have been used. Methodology and interpretation of results is otherwise similar to lactose, as described above (fig 2​2).). It is unclear what the optimal dosage of fructose is to detect clinically meaningful malabsorption. Another unresolved issue is how symptoms should be assessed during the test and to what extent these are reliable, as very few blinded studies have been performed and the majority of studies are also uncontrolled. Of great importance is also the fact that simultaneous ingestion of glucose increases fructose absorption,48,49 and the majority of dietary sources of fructose also contain glucose. On the other hand, simultaneous ingestion of sorbitol, a naturally found sugar alcohol often used as a “sugar free” sweetener by the food industry, increases malabsorption of fructose.51 Therefore, breath testing of fructose alone probably does not reflect fructose ingestion in everyday life, making interpretation of the test extremely unreliable from a clinical point of view.”

      As for FODMAPs, MedScape has this to say:

      ‘There is “very limited evidence” to support a diet low in short-chain carbohydrates, also known as FODMAPs (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols), for patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), according to a review published online August 6 in the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin.

      “Evidence for the efficacy of the low FODMAP diet to improve symptoms of [IBS] is based on a few relatively small, short-term unblinded or single-blinded controlled trials of varying duration,” write James Cave, OBE, FRCGP, editor-in-chief of the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin, and colleagues, noting that improper use could lead to dietary insufficiencies.’

      1. Hi Tom
        Thanks for your response. Monash University has done, and continues to test for FODMAPs and it was their fasting breath testing that I underwent. My symptoms decreased quite dramatically once I went on a low fodmap, gf diet. I even managed to put a bit of weight back on. But have lost it again this year.
        After 2 years my symptoms continue to be improved somewhat, but I still struggle to regain the weight I lost back then.

        1. Hello from Noosa. FODMAPs was invented by a couple of Monash researchers so you have certainly gone to the experts.
          Glad to hear you have improved. Mind you, many people here would like to lose more weight rather than regain what they have already lost! And I think I would be lost if I had to give up apples.

        2. I would be curious whether the issue with FODMAPs was a short term problem caused by gut bacteria imbalance or a more permanent issue relating to some other aspect of nutrient absorption. This would seem to be an important question because they suggest opposite courses of action. If the correct course would be to nourish a few lines of bacteria that are rare (with trillions of bacteria, it doesn’t seem likely that major lineages would go completely extinct), then starving these lines further doesn’t seem like a long term solution.

          Do you have any information to help decide between these alternative viewpoints?

  8. I always wondered how I could handle a berry, banana, mango, spinach smoothie– but if i ever have more than 6oz of coke/Pepsi/Sprite I feel like crap. I generally don’t eat refined sugars so I’ve become sensitive I guess.

  9. I recently had an EIS and the doctor found a tendency for diabetes, I have slightly high insulin, but I have been a began for 1.5 years and I avoid sugar, I eat a lot of fruits though…could it be the fruit?

    1. Well its carbs(rice, bread, potatoes etc) or sweet things such as high GI GL sweet fruits. Do your own research on what fruits diebetic are told to avoid, bananas are high on that list for example. Does anyone here care to deny this? Or should diabetic go on an orange juice, banana smoothie diet?

    2. Rafaela: Dr. Greger did a great video on the cause of diabetes. Have you seen this one?: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-causes-diabetes/ Even a vegan diet can include a lot of fats, such as oils or lots of coconuts and avocados.

      Eating whole fruits is not typically the cause, but eating fruits when you already have insulin resistance can exacerbate your symptoms. If you treat the cause of the diabetes, you should be able to eat some fruit without problem.

      If you want to study the topic a bit more, a really great books is: “Dr. Neal Barnard’s Program for Reversing Diabetes: The Scientifically Proven System for Reversing Diabetes without Drugs” : https://www.amazon.com/Neal-Barnards-Program-Reversing-Diabetes/dp/1594868107/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1470845421&sr=8-1&keywords=prevent+and+reverse+diabetes Dr. Barnard has done studies which are published in peer reviewed journals showing that his diet is three times more effective at treating diabetes than the ADA diet.

      This works on real people and can sometimes reverse diabetes very quickly. It works so quickly that people who are taking drugs for diabetes have to work with their doctor while changing their diet so that they can be quickly weened off the drugs as needed.

      Hope this helps.

      1. Clearly not all fruits are created equal. Its like saying all meats are healthy, if a study says grass fed beef is good, then spam=meat=good for you.

        Making blanket statements about fruits that have wildly different insulin responses makes no sense.

        1. Insulin response relates to the damage diabetes does to your body. There is no connection between foods that cause insulin spikes in the short term and insulin resistance in the long term. In fact, if done carelessly a diet that helps one will generally harm the other. That’s why doing research to understand the causes of insulin resistance is necessary to talk knowledgeably about the overall disease.

  10. Vegan children could be criminalized in Italy!

    I just saw an article in the BBC about how a new proposal has come to criminalize parents in Italy that feed vegan diets to their children. They site from the bill “The vegetarian or vegan diet is, in fact, deficient in zinc, iron, vitamin D, vitamin B12 and omega-3”.

    BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37034619
    The proposal for new legislation (in Italian): http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg17/lavori/stampati/pdf/17PDL0043930.pdf

    What do you think about this? I think it is outrageous.

  11. Shortly after eating fruit (cca 30 mins), I feel agitated, anxious and shakey, have problems focusing, and feel an intense urge to eat something sugary. Does anyone else notice similar effects? Aren’t these symptoms of reactive hypoglycemia?

      1. Of course, but my question was not as much about artifical sweeteners. I want to know what is behind these effects fruit has on my body.

          1. Thanks. But this study, as all the others I have encountered, addresses consumption of HFCS: “… the
            concerns raised about the addition of fructose to
            the diet as sucrose or HFCS should not be extended to naturally
            fructose from fruit and vegetables. The consumption
            of fruit and vegetables should continue to be encouraged because of the
            resulting increased intake of fiber,
            micronutrients, and antioxidants. In addition, the intake of naturally
            occurring fructose
            is low, ≈15 g/d, and is unlikely to contribute
            significantly to the untoward metabolic consequences associated with the
            of large amounts of fructose.”

            1. Most Americans(ie people asking “can I eat more fruit”) are already consumimg too much sugar in all its forms. any additional amounts fructose get processed in the liver to fat that goes to organ fat such as the heart or liver. The body needs very little fructose “all” excess regardless of source, gets stored as fat and causes other problems. The damage should be minimized. Also fruits in the past were consumed only when in season, now they are imported and consumed year round.


              Half Of Adults In The U.S. Have Diabetes Or Pre-Diabetes, Study Finds


              The breakdown of fructose in the liver does more than lead to the buildup of fat. It also:

              – elevates triglycerides

              – increases harmful LDL (so-called bad cholesterol)

              – promotes the buildup of fat around organs (visceral fat)

              – increases blood pressure

              – makes tissues insulin-resistant, a precursor to diabetes

              – increases the production of free radicals, energetic compounds that can damage DNA and cells.

              None of these changes are good for the arteries and the heart.

              Researchers have begun looking at connections between fructose, fatty liver disease, and cardiovascular disease. The early results are in line with changes listed above due to the metabolism of fructose

              1. Probably true, but I think your message is misplaced. A regular visitor of nutritionfacts.org is not likely to be an average american downing sodas.

                1. Lets say they eat corn flakes for breakfast, then decide some fruit will be good to looks weight.
                  1 1/3 cup corn flakes, 25 g
                  1 cup skim milk 12 g
                  1 medium banana 27 g
                  64 grams of carbs
                  If they add any sugar even worst.

                  How will that workout?

                  In the 1800s and early 1900s, the average American took in about 15 grams of fructose (about half an ounce), mostly from eating fruits and vegetables. Today we average 55 grams per day (73 grams for adolescents). The increase in fructose intake is worrisome, says Lustig, because it suspiciously parallels increases in obesity, diabetes, and a new condition called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease that now affects up to one-third of Americans. (You can read more about nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a Harvard Health Letter article.)

                  Virtually every cell in the body can use glucose for energy. In contrast, only liver cells break down fructose. What happens to fructose inside liver cells is complicated. One of the end products is triglyceride, a form of fat. Uric acid and free radicals are also formed.

                  None of this is good. Triglycerides can build up in liver cells and damage liver function. Triglycerides released into the bloodstream can contribute to the growth of fat-filled plaque inside artery walls. Free radicals (also called reactive oxygen species) can damage cell structures, enzymes, and even genes. Uric acid can turn off production of nitric oxide, a substance that helps protect artery walls from damage. Another effect of high fructose intake is insulin resistance, a precursor to diabetes

  12. The discussion here centers on the issues around weight loss and the sugar spike.
    However, since the glucose & fructose ingested in a fruit meal still ultimately
    need to be metabolized in the body, some questions remain:-
    1) it seems that fructose is much more effective than glucose in creating AGEs by
    cross-linking proteins – see the link at
    Should we worry about how much fruit we eat in one sitting?
    2) It seems that pancreatic cancer cells thrive far more on fructose than glucose
    – see the link at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu
    3) Glucose is an upregulator for mTOR, so a regular high intake of
    glucose could lead to accelerated aging. See the link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu
    4) Even though there may by no sugar spike after consuming a large amount
    of fruit, the pancreas still needs to produce insulin to process the glucose,
    and the liver still needs to metabolize the fructose. Are these two organs not
    stressed by a large amount of fruit eaten in one sitting?
    Does the liver not produce new fat from the fructose if there is enough glucose

    in the bloodstream?

    1. Hi Hendrick-

      1. Your first link also involves bovine (cow) albumin… WFPB discourages consumption of animal products. Do you have the same evidence for crosslinking plant protein?

      2. This study uses refined fructose. The difference seems to be in absorption of fruit sugar from fruit Vs refined fructose.

      3. Refers to an amino acid dependent process- does it say which? Many are in different % in plant-based Vs animal based protein consumption.. may play a role. This is a super complicated abstract involving lots of isolated products and pretty hard to confer what this means for fruit consumption in humans.

      In simple terms, the easiest measure I’ve seen to are you eating too much fruit for your body is weight issues that resolve when decreasing fruit consumption and isolated high triglycerides (in absence of high cholesterol), that resolve when substituting fruit for starch.

      1. Hi Renae, thank you for your comments. A few responses:-

        1) There are also studies of fructose causing glycation of human proteins,
        e.g. human lens protein is considered in

        2) If a fructose molecule arrives at a pancreas cancer cell, it causes
        the same reaction regardless of its origin;- that’s just chemistry.
        If you argue that fruit has other components which block
        this observed action of fructose on the cancer cells, then
        some evidence is needed.

        3) The amino acids involved will differ in different tissues, but there
        are a number of articles about glucose upregulating mTOR.
        Here is one for pancreas cells
        which states:- “glucose robustly activates mTOR in an amino acid-dependent manner…”

        1. This argument you have presented here is somewhat strained. It is essentially claiming that fruit consumption must be unhealthy because of a number of in-vitro studies which link some nutrients that are contained in fruit with certain isolated biochemical processes.

          Unfortunately for such bold extrapolations, studies indicate that in actuality whole fruit consumption is linked with lower diabetes risk and lower pancreatic cancer risk.

          The internet is rife with plausible individuals who argue that fruits and vegetables should be unhealthy (and meat dairy, eggs etc should be healthy) based on complicated chains of speculative reasoning which lead to conclusions directly contrary to actual real world results.

          1. Hi Tom, thank you for your comments.

            First, I definitely made no argument that fruit consumption is unhealthy,
            in fact I do not think so.
            What I did try to do, was point out that the issue of the effects of fructose in a high fruit diet were not adequately addressed in the discussion so far, and that there are a number of further scientific points which also need to be included in an analysis of such a question.
            Second, in vitro studies, whilst not conclusive, do probe the underlying chemistry at work, and cannot be dismissed out of hand. In fact, Dr. Greger himself takes notice of these, e.g. on the basis of an in vitro study, he demoted avocadoes from a green light to an orange light food.

            I will not address the speculative generalisations in your last paragraph;- we should keep to the scientific issues under discussion.

            1. Thanks Hendrik. I agree that in vitro studies can be informative. However, drawing conclusions from them that run course to observed facts seems neither “scientific” nor even sensible. If you choose to characterise such a simple observation as a speculative generalisation, then I am at a loss for words!

    1. http://paleoleap.com/gout-forget-purines-skip-sugar/
      Paleo Leap | Paleo diet Recipes & Tips

      If gout runs in your family, you’ve probably heard the advice to pass on all the animal protein, which would make Paleo difficult at best. But actually, there’s more to the story: instead of blaming meat, we might want to take a hard look at sugar instead.
      What Is Gout?
      Gout is a very painful type of inflammatory arthritis. The best-known symptom is pain in the big toe, but gout can also cause pain in any other joint. Less commonly, it can even cause kidney stones or other completely different symptoms. These problems can show up in “attacks” separated by periods without pain, or they can be chronic and continuous.
      Gout is more common in men than in women, but rates in both sexes have been steadily increasing for the last couple of decades.
      The root cause of gout is too much uric acid in the blood (hyperuricemia). Uric acid is actually one of the body’s primary antioxidants, but as always, it’s possible to get too much of a good thing. When there’s too much uric acid in the blood, it crystallizes, and the resulting solid crystals wind up in and around the joints (and occasionally in the kidneys, which is where the kidney stones come from).
      Conventional wisdom holds that the best diet for preventing and treating gout is low in seafood and meat (especially organ meat), which sounds like it would pretty much take Paleo out of the running. But there’s actually more to the story than that…
      Gout, Purines, and Animal Protein
      First of all, it’s important to recognize that there actually is some support for the advice to cut down on meat and seafood. Beef ribs
      For one thing, there’s the problem of association. Gout is a classic “disease of civilization:” ever since it was first named and described, it’s been recognized as a problem for people who have plenty of luxury food. Until very recently, meat was a luxury food, so it’s not hard to see how eating a lot of meat looked like the cause of gout.
      With modern population research, we know that gout is indeed associated with (remember: this does not mean “caused by”!) meat intake. In this study, for example, “each additional daily serving of meat was associated with a 21 percent increase in the risk of gout, and each additional weekly serving of seafood was associated with a 7 percent increase in risk.”
      And what’s more, there’s actually a reasonable explanation of why eating meat could make gout worse. Meat – especially organ meats and seafood – contains purines, chemical compounds that are broken down into uric acid. So eating more purine-rich food means more uric acid which means more gout…right?
      Unfortunately, there are a few inconvenient problems with this theory:
      First of all, there’s the problem of vegetables. Even though most vegetables are low in purines, a few (like spinach, for example) have a significant amount. But in the NEJM study linked above and in this one (completely different authors and population), purine-rich vegetables weren’t associated with gout at all.
      Then there’s the fact that only about 1/3 of uric acid in the body comes from dietary purines; the other 2/3 is produced by the body itself. In other words, no matter how many purines you eat or don’t eat, the majority of uric acid is coming from somewhere else anyway.
      This suggests that maybe focusing on purines is looking in the wrong place.
      Gout, Alcohol, and Fructose
      Instead of blaming dietary purines, let’s briefly entertain an alternate hypothesis and see whether it fits the facts better. What about the connection between gout and sugar (fructose)?
      Just like purines, fructose increases the production of uric acid. But it also does something else: it reduces excretion. In terms of raising total uric acid levels, this is much worse, because it also affects the 2/3 of uric acid produced by the body itself. As this study puts it: “hyperuricemia in gout is most commonly the result of relative urate underexcretion.”
      If you’re producing more uric acid (from purines or anything else) but then just peeing it all out again, you won’t be sick at all. Total uric acid levels will only rise if you can’t excrete the uric acid that you produce. Purine-rich foods won’t do that, but fructose will.
      Regulation of uric acid excretion by the kidney.
      Gout is strongly associated with diabetes and metabolic syndrome. This suggests that there may be some kind of blood sugar connection, and there’s evidence that it goes both ways. Insulin resistance contributes to hyperuricemia, and hyperuricemia induces insulin resistance.
      Alcohol, which behaves a lot like fructose metabolically, also increases production and reduces excretion of uric acid – as anyone with gout could tell you after drinking a couple beers.
      The fructose connection would also explain why purine-rich meat is associated with gout attacks, but purine-rich vegetables aren’t.

  13. http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/76/5/911.full
    In the past, fructose was considered to be beneficial in the dietary management of diabetes mellitus and insulin resistance because fructose ingestion results in smaller postprandial glycemic and insulin excursions than do glucose and complex carbohydrates (28). In light of the information presented here, a cautionary note is warranted. Obesity is a growing epidemic in the United States. In terms of feedback to the CNS regarding energy status in peripheral tissues, fructose consumption results in decreased production and, therefore, decreased signaling to the CNS from 2 hormones (leptin and insulin) involved in the long-term regulation of energy homeostasis and body adiposity (11, 69). The same observation applies to dietary fat. Thus, the long-term consumption of diets high in fat and fructose is likely to lead to increased energy intake, weight gain, and obesity. The potential for weight gain from increased fructose consumption may only represent one aspect of its metabolic consequences

      1. The problem is most americans are overweight, which means they already eat too many carbs and sugar. so sweet fruits are just on top of the rest. all fructose goes to the liver to be turned in belly fat, organ fat etc, over what the body immediately needs right at that moment. So these average Americans have way too much fructose, [any] added fructose slow or fast gets stored as fat.


        The breakdown of fructose in the liver does more than lead to the buildup of fat. It also:

        – elevates triglycerides

        – increases harmful LDL (so-called bad cholesterol)

        – promotes the buildup of fat around organs (visceral fat)

        – increases blood pressure

        – makes tissues insulin-resistant, a precursor to diabetes

        – increases the production of free radicals, energetic compounds that can damage DNA and cells.

        None of these changes are good for the arteries and the heart.
        Researchers have begun looking at connections between fructose, fatty liver disease, and cardiovascular disease. The early results are in line with changes listed above due to the metabolism of fructose

        1. John Wilson: Once again, from your own reference: “In the early 1900s, the average American took in about 15 grams of fructose a day (about half an ounce), most of it from eating fruits and vegetables. Today we average four or five times that amount, almost all of it from the refined sugars used to make breakfast cereals, pastries, sodas, fruit drinks, and other sweet foods and beverages.”

          Now consider the thoroughly documented health benefits of eating whole fruits, including weight management, which I have already referred you to. Your continued insistence that eating whole fruit is a problem is not backed up by either the evidence I have provided or the evidence you have provided.

          Bottom line: Get rid of the junk food. Eat lots of fruits and veggies and intact grains and beans. That’s what the evidence is pointing us to.

          1. Here’s one more great quote from the reference supplied by John Wilson: “… it’s worth cutting back on fructose. But don’t do it by giving up fruit. Fruit is good for you and is a minor source of fructose for most people. The big sources are refined sugar and high-fructose corn syrup.”

            1. The majority of people here are not going to “give up” sugar intake in any form. Any additional fructose will go to the liver and be processed by the to fat be stored as fat. fruits have more than fructose btw.

              “The most common types of sugar found in ripe bananas are sucrose, fructose and glucose”


              Half Of Adults In The U.S. Have Diabetes Or Pre-Diabetes, Study Finds

              1. John Wilson: None of this information makes your case. You have yet to give us evidence showing that eating whole fruits contributes to harm, including weight gain. Your own evidence includes authors encouraging people to eat fruit.

                This time you tell us which sugars are in bananas. Knowing which sugars are in bananas does nothing to show that eating bananas contributes to weight gain. Have you reviewed the information about how calorie density relates to weight? Here’s a great overview: “How To Lose Weight Without Losing Your Mind” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAdqLB6bTuQ Clearly, even someone on a SAD diet would do well to incorporate a banana or two.

                I’ve already addressed the diabetes issue with you. Telling us how many people are diabetic or pre-diabetic does not mean that abstaining from whole fruit is a good idea. You have yet to show that you have reviewed the evidence I provided about the cause of diabetes.

                You seem to believe both that people will not change their diets (no one is going to give up sugar) and that telling people to reduce fruit makes sense. Meanwhile, all the evidence suggests that a) it is the added sugars which are causing people harm and b) fruits are healthful.

                1. the study you claim, does not say Fruit its says

                  Blackcurrants and lingonberries, as either whole berries or nectars, optimize the
                  postprandial metabolic responses to sucrose. The responses are
                  consistent with delayed digestion of sucrose and consequent slower
                  absorption of glucose.

                  This is for a small amount of {berries}, with a little bit of {pure sucrose} absent any other carbs and in already proven “20”{healthy women}. you want to extend the findings to 50% of Americans that are diabetic or pre-diabetic and also to every type of fruit such as bananas etc. that’s about 16 million not so healthy people, that are eating too many carbs and sugars. I have already stated that 1 cup of berries per day would be ok, perhaps more to healthy people that are not borderline diabetic.

                  Also other higher GI fruits would not be addressed by your study. the diet of 16 million (1/2 the US population, soon to be the majority), while eating these fruits at the same meals is also not addressed as the studies were conducted limited food intake restrictions(berries and sucrose). they do not represent a normal meal. interesting but you are claiming way more than the study actually finds.

        2. No, if they starts to eat fresh fruits and even dried ones, they will eat less crap so thats always beneficial…especially with the high content of water and fiber added…

  14. I found it interesting that strawberries had the most effect on decreasing insulin response; I had been including them in my morning smoothie just for flavor and variety. I also found it interesting that “[d]espite the pronounced impact on insulin response, the effects of the berries on postprandial glycemia were modest.”

    “So if you’re going to make pancakes, make sure they’re blueberry pancakes.”

    From the cited article:
    “Our results on the effects of berries on postprandial glycemia are in
    agreement with a previous study reporting that addition
    of raspberries and blueberries to starch-based food
    (pancake) did not alter the postprandial glucose response (29).”

    I think I’ll go back to eating barley instead of whole wheat bread for breakfast (though according to Cronometer, whole wheat bread tops the rankings for a lot of my micronutrients as well as protein and carbohydrates; I usually take in about 80 g / 200 calories worth of whole wheat bread a day).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This