Fruit Juice Is Not Healthy

What theories are you talking about? Everything I said is factual.

There are no health benefits from eating sugar. Fructose is the worst of all sugars as it must be processed in the liver, and what the body cannot use gets converted to fat which winds up in the fat cells or the blood. There is a direct correlation between fructose intake and high triglycerides. Excess fructose consumption leads to fatty liver and a host of other health problems. Gulping down excessive amounts of grape juice over a prolonged period will give you fatty liver just like gulping down Mountain Dew will. It's as hard on the liver as alcohol is, if not more so.

Whole fruits do not contain nearly the amount of sugar juice does, and it contains the good stuff which is stripped from juice -- which I will continue to contend is on par with soda from a metabolic (and overall health) perspective.

Also, there are almost exactly the same amount of calories (and sugar) in juice as is in the same amount of soda, and this includes juice with no sugar added. So it looks like you're the one who needs to check their facts since you're WRONG.

"A previous employee of Whole Foods." Oh wow, you worked at Whole Foods, so you must be an expert on health and nutrition then. LOL! Maybe your lack of knowledge about nutrition is why you no longer work there. Then again Whole Foods sells a bunch of genetically-modified garbage just like any other grocery store. There is nothing special about Whole Foods, other than that they cater to a certain demographic.

The quotes you posted from that article are nothing I haven't heard before. Carbs are not the issue with fruit -- fructose is. Vegetables, unlike most fruits, are low in carbs because they're low in sugar. Vegetables are also much healthier than fruits, yet most people don't like them because we're conditioned from a young age to like sweet things. Most fruit in modern times has been altered so that it has more sugar, so the fruit we have today isn't the same as the fruit our ancestors ate. That fruit probably didn't taste as good, but was in many ways healthier than the fruit we have today.

I like fruit, and will readily admit it can be part of a healthy diet, but I don't subscribe to the notion that because it grows on a tree, it's okay to eat an endless amount of it. And I certainly don't think concentrated fructose in the form of juice has any health benefits. Yeah, there are vitamins in it, but it's like popping a multivitamin and then washing it down with a Dr. Pepper.

 

Well, the tree does run out, but then there are more!


I am craving a real apple. An unwaxed, unsprayed, perfect apple. And a peach too! Such things exist! :-D

 

Again, you're saying sugar is sugar end of story..

This is NOT the case. Yeah, if you loaded somebody up with fructose they'd have many problems. But fruit isn't just a ball of sugar, it contains fiber, antioxidants, phytonutrients, vitamins/minerals, water..

You've made the point that fiber levels are lowered when fruits are juiced. This is true, but it's not void of it like sodas are. Any label of natural juice will show it has fiber. Any claim to whole fruits themselves being unhealthy just isn't true.

Okay.. Nobody has subscribed to that.

Sugar is not absorbed the same way in nature as it is as corn syrup. Don't say stuff like that and claim to be factual.

 

One only needs a brief glance at any readily-available OJ bottle to realize it isn't "healthy." The issue, in my opinion, isn't whether or not any fruit juice is healthy, the question is whether or not many of the widely distributed brands have any nutritional value. At home, you can probably juice specific fruits and make a reasonably healthy concoction, but the average American consumer, who can't afford a juicer or the amount of produce necessary to properly juice, is going to suffer from buying the products offered on the shelves of grocery stores.

These are the people who would benefit most from a change in diet, but who are also not educated and/or wealthy enough to keep a balanced diet. The working class moms who want their kids to be healthy, so they buy them some Tropicana or Dole juice. These blends are simply glorified soft drinks, with the addition of vitamin C, which can be easily found elsewhere.

 

It is my understanding that a very low carb diet can be hard on the body because it requires more energy to metabolise fats which is why glucose gets used first. If you're like me and doing workouts at the gym then wouldn't restricting carbs to the lowest possible be counterproductive because you need energy to do those workouts which would be hard without carbs. Also it is my understanding that ketosis is metabolically similar to starvation so how is that healthy? Also things like sweet potato are a great source of nutrients so why eliminate those and organically grown ones should give more nutrients than conventional ones.

 

If you like sweet potatoes and they don't cause you to gain weight, then by all means eat sweet potatoes. I personally do not find much nutritional value in potatoes, and would much rather obtain my carbs from green, cruciferous vegetables.

A person who is keto-adapted does not need carbs because ketones become the body's primary energy source in the absence of carbohydrates. It marks a complete shift in metabolism. Only a person who has not yet keto-adapted (a process which takes about 2-3 weeks of very low-carb eating) and is still in sugar-burning mode will need carbs to fuel their workouts. I do High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) 3-4 times a week not only in a state of ketosis, but often following 20+ hours of intermittent fasting. It is an amazing tool for getting lean while building muscle.

The work of people such as Dr. Jeff Volek and Stephen Phinney shows that endurance athletes can perform as well, if not exceed in the performance of high-carb athletes while in a state of ketosis,

Ketones appear to be the body's preferred fuel source, but in particular the brain seems to function much better when fueled with ketones as opposed to glucose,

 

it's not bad too have too many ketones in your blood though?

i imagine this ketosis state wouldn't really be ideal for me, as someone who struggles to gain even 5 lbs

 

The only way you can have too many ketones in the blood is if you are a Type 1 diabetic (in which case the body does not produce insulin) and are in a state of ketoacidosis -- which is not the same thing as nutritional ketosis -- where ketones accumulate to dangerously high levels, and the body becomes acidic and your organs basically begin to shut down. Non-diabetics run absolutely no risk of this happening.

 

Great. Now what the fuck am I gonna drink with my gin while contemplating my financial situation as I drive my automobile?

 

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/08/reduce-type-2-diabetes-risk/

Quote from the article:

"People who ate at least two servings each week of certain whole fruits — particularly blueberries, grapes, and apples — reduced their risk for type 2 diabetes by as much as 23 percent in comparison to those who ate less than one serving per month. Conversely, those who consumed one or more servings of fruit juice each day increased their risk of developing type 2 diabetes by as much as 21 percent. The researchers found that swapping three servings of juice per week for whole fruits would result in a 7 percent reduction in diabetes risk.

The fruits’ glycemic index (a measure of how rapidly carbohydrates in a food boost blood sugar) did not prove to be a significant factor in determining a fruit’s association with type 2 diabetes risk. However, the high glycemic index of fruit juice — which passes through the digestive system more rapidly than fiber-rich fruit — may explain the positive link between juice consumption and increased diabetes risk.

The researchers theorize that the beneficial effects of certain individual fruits could be the result of a particular component. Previous studies have linked anthocyanins found in berries and grapes to lowered heart attack risk, for example. But more research is necessary to determine which components in the more beneficial fruits influence diabetes risk."

 

I may still prefer to consume a few carbs but I can function on less carbs compared to most people I don't consume fruits all that often and I've noticed that I do tend to be prone to appetite suppression but that could be from the protein. Maybe I could be partially keto-adapted if such a thing exists? Can ketosis suppress appetite?

 

Yes, you can be partially keto-adapted if you keep your carbs under, say, 100 grams per day. To fully keto-adapt, you need to initially keep your carbs below 20-30 grams per day. Once adapted, under 50 grams is sufficient for most people to remain in a state of ketosis.

Can ketosis suppress appetite? Absolutely. Why? Because you're in fat burning mode, and when your body is not burning off the calories from the food you just recently ate, it's burning off the body's fat stores for energy. Because your body is no longer conditioned to burn sugar, you do not have the blood sugar spikes and drops which contribute to hunger and other symptoms commonly associated with low blood sugar.

This is why ketosis is NOT the same as being in starvation mode. The bodies of people who are sugar burners will often begin burning muscle as opposed to fat in the absence of calories consumed. This is why ketogenic diets are also muscle and protein sparing.

 

"Metabolic derangement" is a vague statement. I cited metabolic syndrome and hypothyrodism which are medical terms. They are associated with a portion of the overweight population but not all of it. An association itself doesn't necessarily mean that it caused the overweight condition. Some metabolic conditions evolve along with an obesity condition and it's difficult to tell which of the two caused the other. Neither may have caused the other. Or each of the two may have helped cause the other.

Define 'metabolic derangement' and post references that support the claim that every overweight condition is caused by or associated with a metabolic derangement.

The goalposts can be moved to increasing vague terminology such that a claim can never be refuted. Such contentions may have some talking-point value in a truther-conspiracy-ideological context, but in terms of a rational discussion based on objective facts they have little or no meaning.

As an example of how easily an overweight condition can be blamed on metabolism, consider a decision of an able-bodied person of normal metabolism to not engage in physical activity. Lack of activity tends to cause a lower basal metabolic rate. A person in such a sedentary lifestyle could then say that he suffers a 'metabolic derangement' of lower basal metabolic rate and that it caused his weight gain (and that calories-in-calories-out isn't the issue). Was it the person's 'metabolic derangement' that caused the weight gain or was it the decision to not engage in physical activity?

 

Eating the Standard American Diet, which is high carb / high sugar, causes a person's metabolism to become deranged over time, where the body becomes increasingly less able to utilize glucose effectively, so it gets diverted to the liver where it is then converted to fat by the process of de novo lipogenesis and stored. It does not have to mean the person has full-blown metabolic syndrome or type II diabetes.

Some people have metabolic derangement from the time they are very young, which can be attributed to genetics and the eating habits of the mother prior to giving birth.

Sure, a sedentary lifestyle can create problems if the metabolism is already compromised. However, there are plenty of incredibly thin people who do nothing all day, and eat the worst foods, yet never gain weight.

If it was as simplistic as you make it out to be with regard to calories in / calories out, nearly every stoner in the world would be obese. But that's just not the case. There are plenty of overweight and obese people who eat way less than people who are skinny (and sometimes even underweight), while at the same time doing an hour or more of cardio per day, yet they remain fat. How many people cut calories and walk everyday, yet still struggle with their weight? Losing weight would be a lot easier for a lot of people if it were a simple matter of energy intake vs. expenditure.

 

The points that you've made in that post aren't being dismissed. Such metabolic issues happen with some people. The problem is the dismissal of calories-in-calories-out and the contention that weight gain in every person is caused by a metabolic problem. That's a sweeping generalization that isn't supported by facts.

Engaging in a sedentary lifestyle causes weight gain for some people who don't have any metabolic disorders. A metabolic disorder isn't a prerequisite for a sedentary lifestyle to be able to contribute to weight gain.

Metabolically healthy people who engage in a sedentary lifestyle over an extended period may end up becoming obese and develop disorders related to obesity. As an example, insulin resistance is closely related to obesity, and there is still debate in the research community regarding which one is causing the other. The fact that this scenario sometimes happens doesn't mean that an overweight condition for everyone was initiated by a metablic disorder.

I haven't said that there aren't metabolism issues related to weight gain. That would be an oversimplification, just as it is oversimplied to contend that every overweight condition is caused by a metabolic problem.

 

A research study that points out the fact that there are obese people who are metabolically normal and that there are normal-weight people who are metabolically abnormal:

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ije/2012/983814/

free pdf:
http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ije/2012/983814.pdf


This research paper is useful and elaborates on the ability of lifestyle changes, such as exercise, to improve metabolic health.

The benefits of exercise on metabolic health and health in general shouldn't be ignored. The benefits of exercise have recently been dismissed by a few jounalists and book writers who are interested in generating controversy and lucrative book deals and who are pretending to be experts in diet and endocrinology. Research shows the opposite.

Passage from the paper:

"The amount of people with obesity has increased dramatically over the past decades to an estimated number of 400 million adults worldwide with a projected 700 million in 2015 [1]. Obesity predisposes to the development of insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and cardiovascular disease (CVD) [2–7]. However, about 30% of obese men and women are metabolically healthy [8], that is, do not have hypertension, dyslipidemia, or disturbances in glucose metabolism. Vice versa, these metabolic abnormalities occur in 20–30% of normal weight people."


Another passage in the paper points out the paradox concerning trained athletes who have lipids in their muscle tissue yet have high insulin sensitivity and good metabolic health in general. Sedentary people who are obese often have lipids in their muscle tissue, yet those lipids act in a way that has a negative effect on metabolism and health. The way such lipids behave depends in part on whether the person is physically active or sedentary. It's an example of how lifestyle influences metabolic health.

From the paper:

"Few studies have investigated the effect of exercise per se, that is, exercise without weight loss and/or caloric restriction. The effect of exercise varies in the different organs with respect to TG accumulation. In muscle, exercise can even increase IMCLs [47, 55, 56]. However, when this is accompanied with increased fatty acid oxidation this is positive and in accordance with the athlete’s paradox. The latter refers to the fact that endurance-trained athletes have increased IMCLs but are very insulin sensitive [26]. In these athletes the IMCLs are a substrate source during exercise, and the high turnover rate prevents accumulation of lipid intermediates that have a negative effect on insulin signaling and can form lipid peroxides. In the sedentary state, when metabolic flexibility is low, IMCLs accumulate with the afore-mentioned deleterious effect on cellular processes [27]. Exercise alone can either increase [47, 55, 56] or decrease IMCLs [54] but does improve insulin sensitivity (Table 1)."

 

I had a friend once who was carrying some extra weight but from all her medical tests and results she was a lot healthier than a lot of other slimmer, better looking health wise people, so that study doesn't surprise me at all.

 

Another thread could be started on ths topic.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/265405.php

 

I've noticed I used to be able to eat high sugar foods like caramel slices and feel indifferent, if I was to do that now I'd get the mild sensation that feels like someone has punched me in the guts. If I were to eat sweet potato or any other starches for that matter I do not get this feeling. So I've become less used to sugar.

 

'Fruit juice' conjures up thoughts of high sugar.

Pomegranate, tomato, and coconut milk are low-sugar. They are fruit by botanical definition, though the general public might not consider them to be fruit. Pomegranate and tomato are frequently noted for their antioxidants and health benefits. Grapefruit, guava, and blackberry are relatively low-sugar.

The following graph summarizes the normalized fructose and sugar content of fruits. What is labeled as the 'bad corner' isn't bad provided a person's metabolism can process sugars adequately.