why limit fruit intake?

RockstarWilson wrote: »

LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »

Molaufy is not entirely wrong. The American Heart Association says that people should limit themselves to about six teaspoons/100 calories of added sugar (women) or nine teaspoons/150 calories of added sugar (men) a day. That works out to about 25 grams for women and about 37.5 grams for men. The World Health Organization makes the same recommendation, but it is for all sugars, not added sugars. The Institute for Medicine, which sets the recommended daily allowances for nutrients in the United States, suggests that no more than 25 percent of an individual's daily calories come from added sugars. There's no absolutes when it comes to sugar. The WHO is by far the most restrictive.

Most government and international regulatory entities that have a say on sugar get bought off by the Sugar companies. Just fyi.

Also, you (whoever reads this) would be damn ignorant to think sugar does not play a part when:

1. per capita added sugar consumption has increased by about 10%, or 12 lbs per person, since 1980
2. Diabetes cases have more than doubled, while new cases per year have more than tripled (CDC), since 1980
3. Obesity rates across the board have doubled, while childhood obesity has more than tripled since 1980
4. Advertizing for all those things with added sugars have dominated the tv for decades.

http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/sugar-industry-lies-campaign

Sugar is killing humanity. That and idiocracy. Our kids are getting fatter because of sugar and lazy parents who dont know how or dont care enough about their kids to cook, we trust what the government says all the time, and we cant stop having babies we have no business having (going back to idiocracy). WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

RockstarWilson wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

RockstarWilson wrote: »

richln wrote: »

RockstarWilson wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

RockstarWilson wrote: »

1. per capita added sugar consumption has increased by about 10%, or 12 lbs per person, since 1980...
Sugar is killing humanity.

Sugar consumption went up roughly 1000% percent between the mid-1800s and the mid-1900s - yet life expectancy and overall health went up dramatically.

But somehow this last 10% increase is going to be the death of us?

Not seeing the logic in this...

The 1800s....before fridges, automobiles, televisions, electronics, population explosion, hospitals. People had to hunt or trade for food, had to defend property by themselves, had to worry about a plethora of uncurable communicable diseases, and had to fight in hand to hand wars.

Life expectancy has gone up drastically since the 1800s, but it will be going back down, I believe. And it takes decades to die from obesity. 1/3 of our kids today will probably die by the time they are 50, or be severely handicapped. Being that society only makes changes when people die, nothing will change in the coming years, and I am crazy, I know. There are too many variables to put sugar as the sole reason people will die. Sugar carries addictive qualities, maybe not to the degree that cigarettes do, but they are there. Just go through the threads and count up all the topics that include "I dont have the will power to give that up. Help me." This is speculation, but I would bet the farm that at least 90% of the foods they talk about are either sugary, or have hfcs in them.

No, sugar does not cause death, but it establishes eating habits that produce conditions that eventually lead to death. We have the JDRF for one reason: our kids are too fat bc they cant stop eating. The food is too tempting for them. Kids have diabetes for one reason, and one reason only: sugar overload. Childhood obesity and diabetes go hand in hand, and ultimately have one cause: eating too much. And how do people eat too much?

Since obesity hinders insulin production, overeating causes obesity, sugar causes overeating, tv time increases food intake, and lack of physical activity (caused by excess tv time) , and sugar overconsumption can kill a diabetic, what do you see happening?

I noticed a couple of factual errors in your post, so I edited them out for you. You're welcome!

Yes, factually I was wrong about the 1800s [and other stuff]. The first automobile was in 1885 1700s, there were hospitals in the most populated areas, and there was electricity that powered light bulbs (but no video games...Cmon, Ben, you are slacking!).

So, why do you think 1/3 of our kids are fat? Bc they are outside playing soccer all day? And it is a FACT that tv time drastically alters food consumption. But really, I would like to have what you have to say. Your critiquing my post is irrelevant if you don't have a take.

Fify.

Also, My kids watch a lot of TV, they are allowed sugar. They aren't fat. Hmm, how does that work?

oh holy hell...can you not see that I am talking generically? Obviously, not everyone that watches tv gets fat. Thanks for proving my point on idiocracy.

Buhahah. You don't even have the most basic understanding of history, population dynamics (1/3 or our kids will die by 50? Lol) and are trying to insult me by using a word that doesn't even exist? Do you get your education from the movies?

I feel honored.

According to you TV and sugar cause problems, except they don't.

You happen to be confusing co-incidental factors with causality. While increase in TV and sugar consumption are both occurring concurrently with decrease physical activity, increase in calories, they aren't causal. If you had spent one second to question ask why - you might have understood that despite my kids watching a lot of TV, they are also very active.

Being sedentary (a highly multi factorial issue linked to lifestyle which may or may not include TV) and overconsumption of calories (which may include soda, HFCs or not) do result in an obese society but your confusing shifts in labor, free time use with causation.

Now who's the idiot?

vinogradov8 wrote: »

Honestly, screw all these opinions. A big navel orange (around 100 cal) fills me up more than beans or nuts. 2 Tbsp of almonds is 100 cal.... and it doesn't taste so good. People in America started getting obese in 1980, it's the processed *kitten* that makes you fat. Eat natural and you'll be fine. And for the smoothie argument, add a scoop or two of protein powder to your smoothie and once again you're fine.

A lot of people here limit fruit intake and then eat a shitload of processed food and justify it as fiber and fat. Keep your calories below the limit and you will lose weight no matter what.

mamapeach910 wrote: »

I cannot believe the level of derp in a thread on fruit, of all things.

Pass me some raspberries.

christinev297 wrote: »

BILLBRYTAN wrote: »

paulaviki wrote: »

I only limit fruit because I prefer berries, melon and fresh pineapple and in the UK these can be expensive. I usually have an apple each day and loads of veggies instead. I love bananas but only when they are nice and firm, once they start browning I'm not keen.

Bananas are not ripe until they are brown and wither off the vine. Eating them yellow is almost the same as eating them green. They are most nourishing when brown because their own enzymes have already begun to digest them.

You're probably right. But i have to eat them when they are yellow with a green tinge to them. I really dislike brown, mushy bananas

Daiako wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

I cannot believe the level of derp in a thread on fruit, of all things.

Pass me some raspberries.

Oh you sweet naive summer child. Remember, there are people who think 'calories don't matter' because water is zero calories but drinking it causes weight gain so clearly blahblahblahsomethingthatIblankedoutonbecauseohgodthederp.