As I’ve said before, I personally prefer to be wrong and further educated with fact based evidence rather than trying to prove a pre-existing belief to be true. I’m not saying that is the case here, just making a general statement.
Based on some of the opinions given on this thread, you might believe that fruit is the root of all digestive problems… I personally can handle 5 or more servings a day with no noticeable consequences. I also don’t drink pop more than once a month (usually less) and rarely eat candy. Sugar may well catch up with me at some point, but I’m literally constantly moving for work and projects at home 7 days a week, usually at least 10 hours a day. That doesn’t include the constant toddler chasing. If we have the time to watch TV for an hour once a week it’s a victory, sleep is too precious for wasting free time on TV.
All that said, my point is that an active lifestyle is a choice and those who choose to be sedentary may benefit greatly from reducing their sugar (fruit) intake. Obviously there is a subset of our population who have very specific dietary needs to maintain a healthy lifestyle, but humans exist as omnivores as evidenced and proven by our dental setup. Extremes in the veggie/fruit only or meat only direction has to be carefully fabricated to maintain nutritional needs and I am not the expert in that regard (though many others are qualified from years of research and training).
It’s a wonderful thing that you take the time to research and gain a deeper understanding of the things you are interested in. That is the spirit of the scientific method.
On that train of thought, keep in mind that every single “accepted” idea of science is considered a theory and not a fact. Any and every theory can be tested and has the potential to be proven false, even Einstein’s theories as one of the smartest humans ever to breathe on this earth. I understand your frustration with changing ideas (argument on aspirin), but that just proves my point that with more data and research a better conclusion can be achieved over time.
I can all but guarantee eating too many apples will kill a person through a myriad of routes (diabetic shock, clogged digestive system, lack of continence leading to the opposite problem and eventual dehydration, etc). Any rational human would stop eating apples before those things occur, as moderation is key to healthy diet for the vast majority of scenarios which is the basis premise of this thread.
Yeah, well, I don’t care about that aspirin thing, what pisses me off is the latest research suggesting that a glass of wine or mug of beer isn’t actually beneficial to one’s heart or general health and any amount of alcoholic consumption is detrimental to your health.
I am hopeful of future research that comes back to the previous belief.
I agree with Ryan’s explanation of the nature of scientific method and wish that explanation was clearly explained in the early grades of public school. Commercial interests love to skewer research that might interfere with their profits and we’ve gradually become much too dismissive of scientifically derived information, IMO. It is the opposite of attitudes towards science in the world I was born into and the change has not done us good.
Yeah, the wine thing is another mystery. I used to be it’s good to drink wine in moderation, then even the NHS came out with it’s not good even 2 glasses a day, then I read recently, a few glasses of wine a day could thwart off dementia. So which is which?
Epidemiological studies are particularly tricky, but are sometimes all we have to go on. However, correlation often doesn’t pan out to be causation. All ethical and competent scientists understand the limitations of such studies and go to a great deal of effort to sort out factors that may be inaccurately steering the correlating “evidence” into a potential indication of causation. For instance, moderate drinkers may tend to represent a demographic that is likely to live a more healthy life style that the general public in other ways. One thing that sometimes helps is when such studies are done in several different countries with diverse cultures, as is the case with the fruit eating studies, but a level of skepticism is certainly reasonable, as long as one is also highly skeptical about individual anecdotes, which I’m not getting from some of the commentary on this topic. .We tend to fall in love with our own anecdotal experiences, but as a horticulturist, I can attest to often coming to beliefs this way that I eventually find out were mistaken and that my conclusion was drawn from coincidence. Even realizing this I still fall prey to the instinct sometimes.
Another thing I think can muddy conclusions made about research is that researchers want to believe that the conclusions of their research are clear and important, that there is tremendous incentive to get results that are paradigm shifting or at least new. Research that verifies the status quo isn’t going to get attention or attract future funding. But that is sifted out somewhat by the peer reviewing process.
I strongly agree with Alan on the potential negative consequences of so many people who think they know more than highly trained experts and scientist. The internet seems to make many people think that they know more than doctors or scientists. When in fact 90% of the material on the internet is dangerous, misleading, or highly biased. It’s sensationalized to make someone money by getting clicks on their website or videos. In fact, it’s so bad that I think our society is in real trouble.
I’m constantly forced to realize how little I know about anything. What we are discussing here is extremely complicated as is any field of medicine or science. Any lay person who thinks they have it all figured out is delusional.
A lot of people trust what they find on the internet instantly, without any actual research, so many people with an opinion is truth/yet an opinion is not truth, way of behavor. I am not going to say anymore, because anything can be turned in to politics these days.
The best minds in the world stored food in lead jars at the time. Not to many years ago every apple orchard was sprayed down with lead. DDT tends to accumulate in the fatty tissues of people and was sprayed everywhere. Scientists are not always right. It’s best to listen to your body sometimes i’ve found. I’m not saying your surely right and they are wrong this time Alan but i think you are right about what you said. People sometimes have agendas that guide their conclusions. What is their agenda and who do they really work for?
why i never completely trust any one source without serious vetting by other sources. if you do your homework, the truth will reveal itself to you. lots of twisting of truth, half truths or outright lies all over the net and media. its hard to know what to believe and even harder to put trust in anything nowadays. i trust my instincts more now than ever in my life. they are usually right.
Was there some snake oil salesmanship where he advised someone that the research he did with his own diet, would cure their ingrown toenail or lung cancer. I seem to have missed that, could you share the topic/post please?
Did you know that 52.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot? Unless it’s shared on the internet then the number jumps to 78.4% Shameful I say…
It was scientists that discovered these things. Layman didn’t suddenly declare, “hey, where have all the pelicans gone, gee, must be that DDT builds up in their fat, you know, because they are on the top of the food chain.”
Science leads to new technology and capitalism pushes to release it in new products for profit. If the government doesn’t put adequate reigns on commerce and industry, please don’t blame science. But no matter how well our government protects us from dangerous products some dangers don’t become apparent through short term research- how long did it take for science to nail tobacco for lung cancer. That tobacco companies hid evidence is a symptom of politics corrupted by money more than science, but it was still a long slog to figure out the danger of tobacco because the health issues appear so long after someone begins to smoke. .
DDT was great for the NYS apple industry for a while. One spray and insect problems were over for the season which helped make their product competitive with Washington apples. Science created it and science led to it being banned.
Now as far as the topic, I don’t think Paul was asking if there are a small percentage of people who can’t eat as much fruit as they want and that it was a general question as it applies to most people. Currently the science seems to indicate that a diet with a generous amount of whole fruit leads to very positive health results for the vast majority of us. Of course you may be the unlucky one who is adversely affected, but I don’t know how that information is helpful to anyone else- until they to sense an adverse reaction to eating fruit. It’s fine to suggest caution but wrong to assume someone else’s body is going to react the same as yours because the data suggests you are in a minority and likely a small one.
What’s more, you can try to listen to your body, but all of us have only so much power in interpreting what we hear. If you expect to get an allergic reaction to something, for instance, that something will act as a powerful placebo to create the reaction you expect.
Of course, in the end, we have to respect what our body tells us, but we will hear better if we try to listen without the prejudice of bad information or the anecdotes of people who suffer consequences the vast majority of us don’t, doing the same thing.
Some people actually believe their own lies, and are not intentionally telling lies. When I was still in school the teacher had proven to us how each time the same story is told by someone else, the story changes, even if each change is tiny, eventually a totally different story is being told. That’s when people are not actually trying to change the story. When people actually try to change the story that is when things get much wilder.
I try to include scholarly article on my search terms. I was on a pharmacist team that helped write treatment pathways for prescribers in Epic based on chief complaint. The prescribing recommendations and treatments, etc were already placed into electronic prescribing. Doctors were guided into writing for specific meds, labs, diets, etc.
Some were prechecked and others you had a choice There are certainly outliers/it’s not a one size fits everyone, but following best practice supported by evidence based literature seems the best way to go. I agree with Alan on that. It has been “beat into my head” for a very long time. If you went off of the pathway, you had to state why. Is this person different? Why can’t they take this antibiotic? A beta blocker cardiac med is the drug of choice and you aren’t prescribing it?
On the other hand, if you have a positive result using an alternate treatment, it’s hard not to go and run with it. It may not be right for others though.
At the same time I have family members who feel the entire medical system has failed them. The cookbook doesn’t work on them and they research the best choices for themselves. Docs who are supposed to know don’t know. Don’t have any idea. They don’t fit it the usual mold. I agree with @TNHunter on that.
I’m always like that. Seeing both sides. I like that and hate that about me all at the same time
Mostly is the fact that nothing you eat exists in a vacuum so any categorical statements are fundamentally flawed. And honestly is not the research, which is basically a set of tested observations that in the hands of scientists lead to a better understanding and new lines of inquiry. Sadly in the hands of the ‘news media’ they are just sound bites to capture eyeballs.
Heck Take professional athletes; most tour de France cyclist are pushing 9,000 calories a day. Michael Phelps used to go well beyond that during training and competition. Their bodies were just burning everything they could throw at it so at 9k calories none of them were excess calories.
I agree with TNHunter that when the officially approved medical methods fail you alternative treatments should be explored. I used to suffer from a great deal of back pain and all my Dr. could offer me was pills for my pain. Stretching exercises not only didn’t seem to help but I often suffered back spasms seemingly as a result of those exercises.
Research in our capitalistic system often revolves around bringing new products to market, and much of the research is financed to create new patents on new products. A lot of the research I read about on how to exercise and its general benefits comes from European countries- there are no potential patents to spur expensive research. The same issue applies to diets.
In the last decade I have read a great deal of testimony about the positive affects of practicing Pilates, but there is precious little research on the subject- no patents to be made. Diet science is similar and digestive problems are often mysterious.
I happen to have an iron stomach, while my wife suffers a great deal from “digestive discomfort” and has to guess what foods may be creating problems, if it is even a question of diet.
As far as my back pain, every other day I do my own invented stomach exercises that involve tensing up my stomach muscles in a repeated exercise (as if I was constipated in a big way)- I usually do this while driving. My “core” is now visibly stronger (impressive abs) and I feel those muscles are giving my back additional support. I haven’t experienced back spasms for years, but since I started doing these exercises I have almost no back discomfort at all, even though my job has me doing the kind of labor that can easily throw out a back. I believe in my exercises, but I’m not a proselytizer about them. I do like having something to do while I drive that has a benefit beyond getting me where I’m going.
we will again agree to disagree. I had to teach about GW as part of one of my courses. Of course I am a believer in it. But It appears to me that the current climate is consistent, or actually colder, than the early days of homo sapiens. Plus the straight paleoevidence is for much higher increases in arctic areas, and much less so in tropical ones (something we get to see today as signs of GW are stronger in the high latitudes).
The 10% reduction in food supply is already happening now, but it is due to scarce diesel and strongly reduced production of fertilizer. Natural gas, used for fertilizer, already tripled in price in November in Europe. It is now quadrupled w.r.t. september 2021.
That is the beauty of the scientific method and the most important part of it- documentation. If you aren’t noting your observations for posterity you might as well not make them in the first place. Speaking of which, I need to buy a field book specifically to note my bloom schedules, fruit ripening, pests, spray schedules etc. For anyone interested, Rite in the Rain (both the notebook and the pens) are amazing. Forestry suppliers is a good source.
I see that as a strength rather than a weakness. In today’s society having the ability to be impartial and not just go by your own bias is a rare gift. I appreciate and am happy to hear both sides of the discussion on this thread regarding the initial topic. Even Trev gave the caveat that he can handle larger amounts of low carb options for fruits and veggies. Speaking of which, @TNHunter what are the lowest carb options for your diet when it comes to fruits? I have spent very little time learning about the specifics of nutrition (my wife was considering it as a major prior to her final choice). As such I’m not familiar with carb contents on particular fruits.
I think in general berries will give you the most nutrition per gram of carbs. They’re lower in sugar and have nice bright colors and skins. That may be the way I go with my fruit growing, more berries and less high brix fruits.
I will stick to the conclusions of the vast majority of climate experts- sometimes outliers nail it in questioning common consensus, but the chances of you being that outlier seems very slight to me. A broad discussion about global warming has proven to be pointless on this forum- the issue has turned into a political football since Koch Industries and other big petro interests made it so to assure the value of their assets, IMO. These folks agree with the science but don’t want the voters forcing a political solution. They do have an ax to grind but their argument is that the government can’t do anything right, which is absurd, because our capitalism is an extension of our government- the right arm of our government regulated economy. .
Let’s please get this back from the political direction it is heading now. If you are typing words like “politics”, “capitalism”, “government”, etc you can bet your post is political.
Back on the original topic, I don’t eat fruit at night any more. I found I could shave off a couple nighttime bathroom trips if I don’t eat fruit late. I think it is the acidity that does it but not really sure. On the other hand I find that eating cranberries takes a couple trips off my usual… as long as I eat them no later than dinner. Fruit is bad, fruit is good
