Are the sugars in fruits good or bad for you?

YMMV wrote:

What non-scientists like Sage don't comprehend is the time scale of evolutionary change. A physiological system that has developed over 2.6 million years does not "turn on a dime" because radically new foods are introduced. For instance, perhaps the most evolutionarily recent human food adaptation has been lactase persistence into adulthood. The allele has been traced to 5K years ago but it only took hold (in Europeans) 3K years ago. This is a change which requires only that a gene (lactase) not be turned off, so it is an exceptionally easy and quick adaptation, compared to say, developing a new enzyme entirely. Typical changes operate in the area of 10K+ years, which takes us back to the origin of grain agriculture. It is not surprising that so many people have serious problems with grains; in many areas grains were only introduced in the last 100 years or so. For these populations, grains can be downright toxic (contributing to the decline of indigenous Americans and Aborigines, especially when you factor alcohol into the picture).

To think that humans are fully equipped to substitute a radically different operating system (plant digestion and assimilation) in a matter of centuries, much less only a few decades in the case of modern seed oils, is foolhardy in the extreme.

S. Canaday wrote:

From the CNN second article you posted

:

“Hong Kong's position as both a marine and land gateway to China and other parts of Asia enables greater access to fresh fish, fruit and vegetables, he said. Combined with a cuisine that includes them in most dishes, the population as a whole eats well.

"We studied the Chinese diet, and it's quite similar to the Mediterranean diet," he said, with meals often consisting of fish, fruits and vegetables, rice, nut oils for cooking and meat chopped up into dishes rather than eaten as whole portions.”

And what did we say about correlation and causation? This is interesting because in the last “article/blog” you posted they said simple things like “a high cholesterol diet is not correlated with heart disease” and “meat is healthy”....

So the articles you post contradict themselves..Do you just read the headlines?

........ wrote:

https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2019/02/20/Neanderthals-mostly-ate-meat-study-confirms/2731550635553/https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/03/02/health/hong-kong-world-longest-life-expectancy-longevity-intl/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fduckduckgo.com%2F&rm=1http://roguehealthandfitness.com/meat-saturated-fat-and-long-life/

njbhvg wrote:

YMMV wrote:

What non-scientists like Sage don't comprehend is the time scale of evolutionary change. A physiological system that has developed over 2.6 million years does not "turn on a dime" because radically new foods are introduced. For instance, perhaps the most evolutionarily recent human food adaptation has been lactase persistence into adulthood. The allele has been traced to 5K years ago but it only took hold (in Europeans) 3K years ago. This is a change which requires only that a gene (lactase) not be turned off, so it is an exceptionally easy and quick adaptation, compared to say, developing a new enzyme entirely. Typical changes operate in the area of 10K+ years, which takes us back to the origin of grain agriculture. It is not surprising that so many people have serious problems with grains; in many areas grains were only introduced in the last 100 years or so. For these populations, grains can be downright toxic (contributing to the decline of indigenous Americans and Aborigines, especially when you factor alcohol into the picture).

To think that humans are fully equipped to substitute a radically different operating system (plant digestion and assimilation) in a matter of centuries, much less only a few decades in the case of modern seed oils, is foolhardy in the extreme.

http://www.davidjackson.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Branson-Dentures.png

YMMV wrote:

What non-scientists like Sage don't comprehend is the time scale of evolutionary change. A physiological system that has developed over 2.6 million years does not "turn on a dime" because radically new foods are introduced. For instance, perhaps the most evolutionarily recent human food adaptation has been lactase persistence into adulthood. The allele has been traced to 5K years ago but it only took hold (in Europeans) 3K years ago. This is a change which requires only that a gene (lactase) not be turned off, so it is an exceptionally easy and quick adaptation, compared to say, developing a new enzyme entirely. Typical changes operate in the area of 10K+ years, which takes us back to the origin of grain agriculture. It is not surprising that so many people have serious problems with grains; in many areas grains were only introduced in the last 100 years or so. For these populations, grains can be downright toxic (contributing to the decline of indigenous Americans and Aborigines, especially when you factor alcohol into the picture).

To think that humans are fully equipped to substitute a radically different operating system (plant digestion and assimilation) in a matter of centuries, much less only a few decades in the case of modern seed oils, is foolhardy in the extreme.

S. Canaday wrote:

I consider myself a "science guy" and am well aware of the "time scale of evolutionary change" with regards to human evolution. Thanks for the history lesson though.

Again, I had already mentioned the significance of our ancestors migrating away from warmer climates around the equator and how that may have resulted in a need to steal milk from other mammals (hence the lactose tolerance). Because we "evolved to tolerate it" doesn't mean it is ideal for long-term health for most people now though. Cow hormones do not generally do a body good long term. People also survived on cannibalism...most "bio available" form of protein.

But, this goes back to the whole argument of fruit (and yes, berries are fruit...despite what some people have said previously in this thread) of being a very healthy part of the human diet simply because they provide calories, energy, vitamins/minerals and hydration.

You then write this: "To think that humans are fully equipped to substitute a radically different operating system (plant digestion and assimilation) in a matter of centuries much less only a few decades in the case of modern seed oils, is foolhardy in the extreme."...

Are you not aware that some of our ancestors actually ate things like plants/seeds/tubers and fruit? Or are you just in denial about it? Again you'll probably go off on some "anti nutrient" tangent about how we simply can't digest any vegetables and how grains are evil and the root cause of all our modern day health problems... Sure, I don't recommend eating a lot of vegetable oils or highly refined grains (i.e. white flour). Of course that is unhealthy for most people. But to cut out fresh whole fruits and veggies in a regular diet at this day and age is because some people are worried about "carbs" is not only foolhardy, but a seeming regression in human evolution and society.

YMMV wrote:

What non-scientists like Sage don't comprehend is the time scale of evolutionary change. A physiological system that has developed over 2.6 million years does not "turn on a dime" because radically new foods are introduced. For instance, perhaps the most evolutionarily recent human food adaptation has been lactase persistence into adulthood. The allele has been traced to 5K years ago but it only took hold (in Europeans) 3K years ago. This is a change which requires only that a gene (lactase) not be turned off, so it is an exceptionally easy and quick adaptation, compared to say, developing a new enzyme entirely. Typical changes operate in the area of 10K+ years, which takes us back to the origin of grain agriculture. It is not surprising that so many people have serious problems with grains; in many areas grains were only introduced in the last 100 years or so. For these populations, grains can be downright toxic (contributing to the decline of indigenous Americans and Aborigines, especially when you factor alcohol into the picture).

To think that humans are fully equipped to substitute a radically different operating system (plant digestion and assimilation) in a matter of centuries, much less only a few decades in the case of modern seed oils, is foolhardy in the extreme.

YMMV wrote:

S. Canaday wrote:

I consider myself a "science guy" and am well aware of the "time scale of evolutionary change" with regards to human evolution. Thanks for the history lesson though.

Again, I had already mentioned the significance of our ancestors migrating away from warmer climates around the equator and how that may have resulted in a need to steal milk from other mammals (hence the lactose tolerance). Because we "evolved to tolerate it" doesn't mean it is ideal for long-term health for most people now though. Cow hormones do not generally do a body good long term. People also survived on cannibalism...most "bio available" form of protein.

But, this goes back to the whole argument of fruit (and yes, berries are fruit...despite what some people have said previously in this thread) of being a very healthy part of the human diet simply because they provide calories, energy, vitamins/minerals and hydration.

You then write this: "To think that humans are fully equipped to substitute a radically different operating system (plant digestion and assimilation) in a matter of centuries much less only a few decades in the case of modern seed oils, is foolhardy in the extreme."...

Are you not aware that some of our ancestors actually ate things like plants/seeds/tubers and fruit? Or are you just in denial about it? Again you'll probably go off on some "anti nutrient" tangent about how we simply can't digest any vegetables and how grains are evil and the root cause of all our modern day health problems... Sure, I don't recommend eating a lot of vegetable oils or highly refined grains (i.e. white flour). Of course that is unhealthy for most people. But to cut out fresh whole fruits and veggies in a regular diet at this day and age is because some people are worried about "carbs" is not only foolhardy, but a seeming regression in human evolution and society.

Your claim to be a "science guy" is comparable to AOC claiming to be an "economist", although she supposedly has at least a piece of paper to back up her sad claim.

You make the exact same arguments that I would have made...in 1977. The fact that you had never even heard of antinutrients (one of the most critical health-affecting components of plant products) until a few weeks ago is testimony to your head-in-the-sand/fingers-in-the-ears blinkered mindset. Stop giving out advice on diet until you can catch up to the 21st century on the issues. Stick to what you know: vlogging your MUT stuff in the meantime.