I'm sure most of us were told at school that fruit is healthy and can be eaten in large quantities. It persistently shows in the "eat most" category of any food pyramid on the classroom wall.

Yet, to paraphrase David Gillespies in "Big Fat Lies":

Fruit contains fructose. Fructose is bad.
Still, we can get away with eating fruit in small quantities because it contains fibre which slows the digestion of fruit and it's evil accomplice (fructose) to a level our bodies are accustomed to. Even so, the sheer level of fructose contained in fruit means that we should restrict our consumption to 1 piece a day.

David also makes the following statement (again, paraphrased) which leads to the crux of my question:

Vegetables hold the same nutrients as fruit but contain a hell of a lot less fructose. That is, there's nothing beneficial in fruit you cannot get from a vegetable and, since vegetables have close to no fructose, you should (in theory) choose a vegetable over a fruit every time.

Question: Is the above statement factual? If so, why do Government/State health initiatives continue to sing the praise of fruit, sometimes recommending the consumption of several pieces a day?

Nutrional journals should really be my first port of call but I haven't yet the statistical mind for interpreting hard-core research.

If anyone here does have a statistical mind and has read through research addressing this question I should especially like to hear from you.

It's pretty easy to compare nutrient content of foods: http://nutritiondata.self.com/

You're overrated

Fruit is fine. Hope this helps.

This doesn't seem to be true. Which makes all the rest doubtful.

Do thee have a sauce?

As far as I've read, the evidence against fructose is overwhelming. Conventional nutritionists agree on this point.

Where they don't agree is on how much fruit one should consume on a daily basis. Some suggest no more than 1 or 2 pieces and others suggest as much as you like.

What i seek to know is:
If i were to eat optimally, would I remove fruit entirely from my diet?

The science (much of which might be bro) on the fructose matter is that, unlike glucose, fructose must be converted into glycogen in the liver (as opposed to in the muscles). The liver (apparently) doesn't have a lot of capacity to convert lots of fructose into glycogen, and then the energy must be used relatively quickly to avoid being converted to fat. Broscientists say that you should have your fructose early in the day or pre-workout.

There is no evidence against fruit. Stop the stupidity. Exogenous ingredients in derp form can't be extrapolated to whole food.

Learn to science.

Stop making **** threads.

Thanks for complying.

what a fruitless topic...

This is just sour grapes. It was peachy. Berry good. Plum full of fruitiness. I went bananas over it.

Orange you glad I posted this?

epoysterical?

Nutrition science is nowhere near as sophisticated as you think. No one can possibly answer this.

Not only that but you're thinking about nutrition in a ridiculously compartmentalized way.

The best you can do is to experiment with different amounts of fruit intake per day/week whatever and observe how you feel and perform. If you're worried about eating too much sugar from fruit, test your blood sugar levels before and after you eat fruit and see if it shoots up too high. If you're woried about fructose ****ing up your liver, get some liver function tests.

If you're worried about not getting enough micros, take supplements and/or get blood tests.

Science is overrated... or at least falsly used/interpreted a lot of the time. Mostly by People who have too much time, and too few common sense.

Response has been more aggressive than I had intended.

As per my first post, these are not my views- they are that of David Gillespie, author of "Big Fat Lies." I merely recited his claims on fruit in the hope of getting a second opinion. If you don't like his ideas then by all means get angry at him.

I don't care if it's compartmentalized. I only care if it's true.
I was hoping we'd have a neutral and evidence based discussion.

It's a fact that fruit contains more sugar than virtually all vegetables. Your experiment would repeat this fact.

The claim David makes is: given that the above is true, and given that fruit contains nothing beneficial that you cannot find in a vegetable we should choose a vegetable over a fruit every time. It's really the part in italics that i want an answer to. Apologies if i wasn't clear.

Did I get angry at you already? My comment attacked the Quality of the Quote you gave us, you just interpreted it oddly...

Eat more than ~50g of Fructose at once, and there's a chance that your body will store the exceeding amount as fat, when your muscles where already loaded with carbs, and you're not burning any of them soon. **** ain't rocket-science.

Decent investment, that book you're talking about, lol.

You suffer from overinformation, and should stop wasting your time and/or money on pointless books, supplements etc. Likely same thing with a ****load of things you buy that have nothing to do with the fitness industry. You'd not only save Money, but also stop making pointless threads... and that Comes from a guy who made threads like "when will (xy-mod) have his next ****, and what sort will it be"... LOL

I do happen to spend a ****load on books but what has that got do do with David's claim? And when did i say i like supplements? I hate those things with a passion.

I didn't interpret your first post at all as it added nothing substantial. I only care about facts and argument, everything else is just wank.

this entire thread adds nothing substantial

op,

So you want someone to scour Pubmed and prove to you that the optimal amount of fructose intake is XX grams per day? That's not going to happen. If you care so much about such an insignificant fraction of your diet, you'll need to do that research yourself, cuz no one else cares.

Just thought that there might be someone here who has done that already or works in nutrition. That's why i asked.

I haven't done anything except state the idea of some author and ask if anyone knows more about it. That's all.

Even if true it's a dumb idea. ****ing eat fruit if you like it. Ain't no one you ever met eats a perfect theoretical diet.

I very well know that my post first post was a bit aggro... I beg your pardon.
Inzaghi, why don't you first of all read Dostojewski, Kant, Kafka, David Foster Wallace and all the other great writers of the last few hundred years, before you spent Money on books about Things that surely have a very low, non at all, or most likely even a bad influence on your day to day life's quality? I honestly truly and deeply think that proceeding like that would be more healthy for you than buying books about certain modern topics with dogmatic approaches, which can even be harmful for you, instead of enhacing your mind.
I again beg your pardon, if you already did that, and now feel bored, and I just offended your intelligence.

OP,

this is all you need to know

Fruits contain
1. Energy

2. Most of it comes from simple carbs like sugar

3. They may contain trace fiber, fat & protein where the rest of their energy comes from

4. They are usually low in cholesterol and sodium but high in potassium, calcium, iron..

5. They basically contain a multitude of micronutrients that are essential but are not found exclusively in fruit only and vary from fruit to fruit.

6. Just like with nuts, portion sizes of fruits can be greatly misjudged

7. And again just like anything else there are fruits that are outliers and may have very unique qualities

Now, combine this info to align with your caloric needs, dietary balance and health goals and you will realize depending on your eating habits a fruit can be anything from over-rated to under-valued and everything in between.

Go get bloodwork, become a fruitarian and post results after 6 months

I don't know; is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable?

I was more annoyed that you and others seem to labor under the assumption that the idea is automatically wrong without feeling the need to resort to evidence or sources. And even if the idea is wrong, it's because David Gillespie is wrong, not because I'm wrong. And I don't mean to sound like a broken record but the books I might or mightn't have read bear no relevance to David's idea.

If your meaning to apologize then just say the words "I'm sorry." I won't bite, I promise.

Cheers man. I'll use this as a template of sorts to establish any advantage that fruit might have over a vegetable.
Think I'll look into a sample of 20 veges and 20 fruits when i get time.

If I should find that (on the balance) fruit has no advantage over a vegetable I might be lead to the same conclusion as the author. I'll report findings after my exams.