Goodbye Fructose

LivyJo

An article I just read that I wanted to share:

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/goodbye-fructose.html

LittleSpy

Yeah, no one will ever be able to convince me that fruit, in moderate portions, is *bad* for me.

Magenta15

Yeah, no one will ever be able to convince me that fruit, in moderate portions, is *bad* for me.

Agreed but I don't think they were really referring to whole/fresh raw fruits....more so additive fructose in other things.

I am keeping my fresh fruit! lol

LittleSpy

Yeah, no one will ever be able to convince me that fruit, in moderate portions, is *bad* for me.

Agreed but I don't think they were really referring to whole/fresh raw fruits....more so additive fructose in other things.

I am keeping my fresh fruit! lol

I'd like to think that, but this is straight from the article: "Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose)." And then, "Ironically, this means that many low-fat foods meant to reduce cholesterol actually increase it when they contain fructose ***in any form.***" (*** added for emphasis)

Maybe the reason the points are so unclear is that it's a blog, not a research article. I think I'm going to browse the original article to see if I can figure out what was lost, if anything, in translation. Can't believe everything you read on the interwebs. And even if it's true, does it mean all fruit is inherently bad? Again, I'll never be convinced.

Magenta15

I'd like to think that, but this is straight from the article: "Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose)." And then, "Ironically, this means that many low-fat foods meant to reduce cholesterol actually increase it when they contain fructose ***in any form.***" (*** added for emphasis)

raisins and honey highlighted though...again we are talking about foods that get processed in one way or another....many/most raisins and DRIED fruits have even more sugar added to them, thats why fresh is always the better option. And honey goes through a process as well so....

I am not arguing the effects of fructose, just that comparing the amount in fresh fruits to the fructose added to everything else, isn't going to be an excuse to stop eating fresh fruit. fruit is healthy, as with everything the key word is Moderate amounts

LittleSpy

My whole point is that the blog article posted gleaned a little more from the original study than is actually there. In summary: Blogs aren't a good source of information as a lot of information can be lost or twisted in the blogger's interpretation whether the blogger is an MD or not.
The blog article just irritated me with it's suggesting high cholesterol and blood sugar levels can, at least in part, be blamed on dietary fructose consumption without mentioning pertinent details (for instance, about how the fructose consumption of the subjects in the study was twice that of an average American adult).

You say "fructose" and people think "fruit" (especially when you mention fruit specifically as a source of the evil substance, "fructose," in your blog). Reading the blog, the author is very clearly suggesting that fructose, which can be found in fruit, could be contributing to your high cholesterol (as well as the other health issues that were mentioned). The wrong person would take that information and run with it -- "fructose is bad for you! = fruit is bad for you!" which then spreads all over blogs and forums all across the internet. And since, obviously, not everyone is going to take the time to read the actual study that was posted in the blog, they take the blog at face value because it was written by a medical doctor.

I guess I just don't like it when blogs are being cited as sources of information. :ohwell: I don't agree with the way the blogger presented the information and the inferences that can be made from the (incomplete) information provided in the blog. It's misleading.

Magenta15

agreed on all points

My whole point is that the blog article posted gleaned a little more from the original study than is actually there. In summary: Blogs aren't a good source of information as a lot of information can be lost or twisted in the blogger's interpretation whether the blogger is an MD or not.
The blog article just irritated me with it's suggesting high cholesterol and blood sugar levels can, at least in part, be blamed on dietary fructose consumption without mentioning pertinent details (for instance, about how the fructose consumption of the subjects in the study was twice that of an average American adult).

You say "fructose" and people think "fruit" (especially when you mention fruit specifically as a source of the evil substance, "fructose," in your blog). Reading the blog, the author is very clearly suggesting that fructose, which can be found in fruit, could be contributing to your high cholesterol (as well as the other health issues that were mentioned). The wrong person would take that information and run with it -- "fructose is bad for you! = fruit is bad for you!" which then spreads all over blogs and forums all across the internet. And since, obviously, not everyone is going to take the time to read the actual study that was posted in the blog, they take the blog at face value because it was written by a medical doctor.

I guess I just don't like it when blogs are being cited as sources of information. :ohwell: I don't agree with the way the blogger presented the information and the inferences that can be made from the (incomplete) information provided in the blog. It's misleading.