We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I first learned about the controversies surrounding fruit consumption from the Mercola website. Because of the metabolic risks posed by fructose consumption, a few years ago Dr. Mercola was advising people to limit their fruit consumption to no more than three servings of fresh fruit a day.
I've never been one for following his advice to the letter; I mainly consult the website occasionally for informational purposes. In looking for the article I referenced above, though, I came across this one linked below which is more recent. The only surprise here is that he mentions prunes as a suggested fruit which is relatively low in fructose, but that puzzles me because I'd think prunes fall into the dried fruit category. Still, that's fine with me, as prunes are a dried fruit I eat regularly. (I started eating them to replace cookies and other sweets in my diet.)
As always, everything in moderation.
1-2 apples a day (unless you're allergic to the things), or 1-2 oranges, or a few peaches, are ok.
Several pounds of apples, a pound of oranges, and half a dozen peaches, all on the same day, not so much.
That was painful! I mean the convoluted logic that somehow the fructose or for that matter any sugar from fruit is good for you but the fructose or any sugar from soft drinks is bad. I mean bending over backwards like that to somehow save yourself from the obvious inconsistency of fruit with all it’s sugar being good but anything (even if the amount of sugar was identical) with added sugar is bad for you must hurt. Either the sugar is good or it’s bad or it makes so little difference we can’t see any harmful effects. Which is it? Don’t try to convince me that once this leaves your small intestines that somehow your body knows it was from a fruit so “sugar good” or it came from a soda so “sugar bad”. Just exactly what is the mechanism that your liver uses to know that the fructose came from an apple so it will not hurt you or that it came from a soda so it causes “negative metabolic effects”? Then, not surprisingly, the site conflates diabetes with consuming sugar. Seriously that is a 100 year old “old wives tale” and we are still buying this superstition based theory? Diabetes is genetic. You get it from your mom and dad not from sugar. Show me the higher death rates for people who drink soda? Arguably 90% of Americans drink soda often and yet our life expectancy increases every year. Where are the dead bodies from fructose? Where are the cancers or (insert scary disease here) from fructose? It’s all scare tactics and personal agenda. Figs have almost ten times the free fructose that apples do so where are all the dead Arabs in Northern Africa killed by figs? Where is the harm from this supposed harmful sugar?
What about those of use who don't do well on sugar-free diets? About 10 years ago I got on board with the Atkins diet fad. I was dedicated to following it strictly for the first week, as instructed. This meant, no bread products, no fruits.
After 3 days I was sick as a dog, dizzy, couldn't focus on my work. So I added just a handful of raisins to the nuts I was eating for breakfast. It was like a light snapped on inside of me. The sickness went away, and I could function again.
Fruit is a good thing. Dried fruit, in particular is high in fiber...why do you think older people eat prunes / raisins to maintain regularity? Fruit has other benefits beyond the sugar found in it. Vitamins C & A, for one.