Recently, I’ve been hearing from many patients who have read Dr. Perlmutter’s new book, Grain Brain, and are now concerned about their carb intake. In his book, Dr. Perlmutter suggests that dietary carbohydrates cause high blood sugar, inflammation, and other effects that lead to a “toxic brain,” which can then develop into neurological conditions such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, depression, and others. Based on this line of causality, he recommends that everyone consume a very low carb diet (<60g per day) in order to prevent neurological disease.
First of all, I’d like to point out that very low carb (VLC) and ketogenic diets can be effective therapeutic tools for treating many neurological disorders. I touched on this briefly a while back in my podcast with Emily Deans, and initial studies on low-carb diets and mental health have shown promise. (1, 2, 3, 4) Because Dr. Perlmutter is a neurologist, it makes sense that he would be a proponent of low-carb diets for his patients based on these therapeutic effects.
Does eating carbs destroy your brain and lead to neurological disease?
However, recommending a low-carb diet as an intervention for sick people is very different from promoting it as a preventative measure for the entire population, which is what Dr. Perlmutter does in Grain Brain. His approach would be somewhat akin to recommending that everyone go on the Autoimmune Protocol to prevent autoimmune disease, which would be unnecessarily restrictive and unhelpful. It’s important to realize that just because a low-carb diet can help treat neurological disorders, doesn’t mean the carbs caused the disorder in the first place. While I don’t argue with the idea that refined and processed carbs like flour and sugar contribute to modern disease, there’s no evidence to suggest that unrefined, whole-food carbohydrates do. In fact, there are three compelling reasons why this is not the case.
#1 – We Evolved Eating Whole-Food Carbohydrates
The first reason it doesn’t make sense that carbohydrates cause neurological disorders is that we’ve been eating carbs for a very long time, and we’re well adapted to digesting and metabolizing them. For instance, fruit has been part of the human diet for longer than we’ve been recognizably human, and while starch hasn’t been part of the human diet for quite as long, it’s clear that we’ve evolved mechanisms to digest and utilize it efficiently.
Compared with most primates, humans have many more copies of the gene AMY1, which is essential for breaking down starches. (5) This gene is unusual in that the number of copies varies greatly between populations, with more copies present in populations that consume more starch. This indicates that starch played a significant role in our evolution, and some scientists have even argued that consumption of starch was partially responsible for the increase in our brain size.
In addition to possessing the ability to break down complex carbohydrates, our bodies require glucose to function properly and maintain homeostasis. The fact that humans can produce glucose from protein is often used as an argument that we don’t need to eat glucose, but rather than viewing this as evidence that that glucose isn’t important, we might view it as evidence that glucose is so metabolically essential that we evolved a mechanism to produce it even when it’s absent from the diet.
#2 – There Are Many Traditional Cultures with High Carb Intake and Low or Nonexistent Rates of Neurological Disease
If carbohydrates cause neurological disorders, one would expect to see high rates of dementia and similar diseases in populations where carbs constitute a significant portion of the diet. But as it turns out, many of the cultures that maintain the lowest rates of neurological and other inflammatory disease rely heavily on carbohydrate-dense dietary staples. For example, the Hadza of north-central Tanzania and the Kuna of Panama obtain a high percentage of their total calories from foods that are high in natural sugars, such as fruit, starchy tubers and honey, yet they are remarkably lean, fit and free of modern disease. (6, 7)
Other examples include the Kitava in the Pacific Islands, Tukisenta in the Papa New Guinea Highlands, and the Okinawans in Japan. The Kitavan diet is 69% carb, with a high reliance on starchy tubers such as yams, and sugary tropical fruits such as banana and papaya. (8) The Okinawan diet is even more carb-heavy at 85% carbohydrate, mostly from sweet potato. (9) Finally, the Tukisenta diet is astonishingly high in carbohydrate at over 90%. (10) All of these cultures are fit and lean with practically non-existent rates of neurological disorders and other modern chronic disease. (11)
#3 – Modern Research Does Not Support the Notion That ‘Safe’ Carbs Are Harmful
The claim that carbohydrates from whole-food sources cause neurological disorders is not supported by anthropological evidence. In addition, modern studies on the health effects of carb-dense foods such as fruit also fail to support Perlmutter’s hypothesis. In fact, studies overall suggest that eating whole, fresh fruit may actually decrease the risk of health issues such as obesity and diabetes, and that limiting fruit intake has no effect on blood sugar, weight loss or waist circumference. (12, 13)
As you may know if you’ve been following my website, there is plenty of modern research demonstrating that diets rich in refined and processed carbohydrates are harmful. However, this is not due to carb content alone, and there’s no evidence that whole-food carbs have the same effect. When an author or expert recommends excluding or severely limiting one of three macronutrients that humans consume, the evidence demonstrating harm should be strong—not only because of the inconvenience of following such a restricted diet, but because extreme diets (ketogenic or VLC diets in this case) are not always harmless. In my practice I’ve seen many patients who’ve worsened on long-term VLC diets, including those with adrenal issues and poor thyroid function. Long-term VLC diets can also lead to imbalances in gut bacteria due to a lack of prebiotic fiber, which can result in digestive issues.
As I’ve always maintained, you need to find out what works for you and tailor your diet to your specific health goals, rather than follow a canned approach. This is exactly what I’ll teach you to do in my book, Your Personal Paleo Code (published in paperback as The Paleo Cure in December 2014), which is coming out at the end of December.
Better supplementation. Fewer supplements.
Close the nutrient gap to feel and perform your best.
A daily stack of supplements designed to meet your most critical needs.
I don’t want to get into a flame war with Brittdoc so this will be my last response to him.
However, I am waiting for some basis to the assertion that fructose in fruit is different from fructose in corn syrup. I believe the claim was made that they are chemically different. Now someone is backing and filling and talking about fiber and micronutrients. This kind of arrogance is exactly why our society is having so much weighing the risks and benefits of various patterns of eating.
I wouldn’t claim that drinking Sprite is the same as drinking juice, but in terms of their impact on the body, they are more similar than they are different. In both cases they are slamming your system with sugar, creating a huge insulin response, causing a blood sugar rise to be followed by a blood sugar fall. For some people — particularly young people — this causes no problem other than the familiar blood sugar rush and crash. But over a lifetime, eating sugary food — including fruit — is at very least something should be examined.
If you believe that sugar is harmful, to give fruit a free pass is absolutely ridiculous. If you think it’s okay to eat Thompson grapes 200 grams at a time, or feed babies apple juice, then don’t condemn soda or candy.
Beaker, you’ve forgotten one important point: these guys are monks, so moderation as a guiding principle likely dictates everything they do, even on “feast” days. Just because they are allowed to eat all of those things on certain days, doesn’t mean they do eat them all in quantity.
I also want to make the observation that people seem to be attacking Perlmutter just because he set a certain limit on carbs (60 grams), which people feel is low. But we have to take into account the population he is dealing with and his target audience: mostly people eating a diet high in refined carbs and, more specifically, people that may have Alzheimer’s in their family and are particularly concerned about that. And let’s not forget that he is dealing with the devastating effects of Alzheimer’s on families and individuals on a daily basis. Maybe his recommendation is relatively low because he is trying to err on the side of caution when speaking to a general audience, and also because he realizes that people tend to naturally creep above a certain carb allotment.
I honestly don’t think anyone on this thread has suggested that everyone should eat a Grain Brain diet–am I wrong about that? What started me posting here is that I really did not like the way Chris just brushed the carb/glucose issue under the rug in a general manner by saying “whole food carbs don’t contribute to disease”. Let’s just say that if I had obvious blood sugar control issues AND Alzheimer’s in my family (or the gene that greatly increases Alzheimer’s risk) I would be paying a HECK of a lot of attention to Perlmutter’s theory/recommendations and I would most certainly not be eating fruit/beans/squash they way I am now.
Back to the monks, I bet if Perlmutter could sit down with each of them, he would not be telling each one “no more than 60 grams of carbs!” Honestly, I think some people just like to attack people who write popular books and end up on the Dr. Oz show.
And more personally Beaker, why are you so upset about this? You are obviously doing something right (being so ripped and all 😉 so why are you so bugged about this? Maybe you should be telling us more about what you eat so we can all try the Beaker Diet–hey, that has a ring to it. You could end up on Dr. Oz!
“And more personally Beaker, why are you so upset about this? You are obviously doing something right (being so ripped and all 😉 so why are you so bugged about this? Maybe you should be telling us more about what you eat so we can all try the Beaker Diet–hey, that has a ring to it. You could end up on Dr. Oz!”
Don’t give me any ideas, but hey it could be a new revenue stream for me. It might be bigger than paleo! I guess diet discussion needs to be more fragmented and that is why I am being pedantic. Tom, etc are somewhat painting with one brush. The Monks are practically eating all the no-nos and experience longevity and health. I would consider the monks routine more applicable to those with a normal BMI before I would consider LCHF for normal BMI folks. Even then use ketosis to drop weight then shift to the monks routine sounds plausible. I’m not seeing LCHF longevity reports where the monks have what 1,500 years under their belt. I’m also not seeing how the monks are performing poorly by NOT being LCHF. The fall back for LCHF proponents always seems to be obese Americans could benefit from it. But it does seem we are getting to the point where there is some agreement that LCHF does not need to be a prescription for all. Anyway, I find this discussion fascinating and it’s sent me in many directions looking for answers. It seems to me moderation of food intake, exercise, meditation (or ultra low stress) are far more important than exact ingredients ingested. When things go horribly wrong (obesity) then maybe drastic measures such as LCHF & ketogenic diets are valuable.
The Mt. Athos diet.. These monks have incredible long lives with virtually no ill health reported. “they live long lives with shockingly low levels of cancer and heart disease. Alzheimer’s is virtually unheard of.”
———
about the diet: (source https://mountathosdiet.wordpress.com/diet-plan/ )
Fast days – Monday, Wednesday, Friday
This day broadly follows the fasting style of the Greek Orthodox religion in small portions. Your eating should be restrained and minimal, and follow these basic rules:
no animal protein, ie. no dairy (milk, butter, cheese etc), eggs, red meat, fish or chicken
no alcohol
oils and fats kept to a minimum
Can eat: unlimited fruit and vegetables, also pasta, potatoes, rice; beans, lentils, pulses, soya and soya products; nuts and seeds (keep portions small).
Moderation days – Tuesday, Thursday, Sunday
A more varied diet is allowed, but all in moderation, and still try to keep your portions small.
Can include dairy products, eggs, fish and chicken, but not red meat.
Olive oil allowed – but keep it limited
Alcohol allowed – 2 units of (preferably) red wine per day
evening meal followed by a small pastry eg. baklava or square of chocolate (one small indulgence allowed)
Feast day – Saturday
Eat and drink what you like on one day a week – a chance to eat meat and indulge a little (if you want to).
However, it’s likely that what you desire to eat on these days will change the longer you are on the diet.
Other principles
salt and processed foods – keep to an absolute minimum (ie. sausages, burgers, ham and other cold meats etc).
sugar and sugary drinks – keep to a minimum.
fats – try to keep butter, margarine and cream to a minimum. Use olive oil as preferred fat.
snacking – choose fruit, vegetables (as much as you like) and plain crackers, dried fruits and nuts (in moderation).
eat organically produced food as much as you can and grow your own vegetables if possible.
exercise regularly – very important! Be as active in your every day life as you can, so it’s good to walk (briskly), use the stairs, and do housework, gardening, dancing as energetically as you can. If you enjoy food and don’t want to be overweight, you need to be active.
flexibility – fasting days can be moved around if necessary to fit in with changing social plans. Though it’s best to try to stick to a weekly pattern as much as possible and it’s best to have days in between fasting days. If circumstances lead to a small deviance on a fast day – just try to eat/drink as little of the ‘not allowed’ food as you can, and include some ‘fasting’ meals on subsequent moderation days.
————–
So… we have 1500 old dudes eating the above which would make LCHFers heads explode with rage.. yet these guys are doing GOOD! Better than anyone else for that matter. Another example of conflicting diets and somewhat shows Perlmutter is on thin ice. All those monks should have some moderate rates of brain disorders but they don’t. I mean c’mon, 3 days a week are “unlimited fruit and vegetables, also pasta, potatoes, rice; beans, lentils, pulses, soya and soya products; nuts and seeds”, then we have 1 day a week eat whatever you want. Non fasting days no fats, some oil. These guys should be dropping like flies right?
I happened to be Orthodox and follow the fasting rules as best I
can.
I would have you know that Paleo and LCHF is very popular among my Orthodox friends. There is even a facebook page “Orthodoxy and the Paleo Lifestyle”.
Intermittent fasting is turning out to be healthful. There is no command for the fast to be high carb and low fat.
The monks on Athos eat lots of fresh fish caught daily just off their shore and lots of olive oil and wine even with breakfast.
They certainly do restrict calories during fasting periods like for Pascha and Nativity and Wednesday and Friday’s and often Mondays too with several exceptions ( it get’s complicated). Orthodox lay people do the same btw.
Our Bishops are all Monks first. Some are thin, some are obese, some have Alzheimer’s and some don’t. I think it depends on how they employ fat and carbs in their diets, just like everyone else.
I had a chance to speak with the BlueZone guys a few years ago and I pointed them in the direction of Orthodox fasting as something they should look into.
You should note that they are careful to tell people that there are many factors that relate to longevity and to be careful not to think there is a longevity diet.
Our monks on Athos live in a close supportive community with long periods of spiritual practice and solitude. Elderly monks are revered. This is more likely the key to their longevity.
I would not forget to factor their low stress levels and sense of fulfillment before you jump to conclusions about why they live so long.
This Brittdoc is pretty hilarious. Telling us we shouldn’t listen to Perlmutter because he is an MD, and then spouting off although he obviously has done no research of his own and constantly mentioning that HE is an MD. And “the biochemistry is too complex, so I won’t go into it”–please!
Any jerk with a blood glucose meter can tell you that fruit can spike BG as much as “healthy whole grain” bread. If this guy really is a doctor, maybe he should go find some patients, and ask the diabetics among them who track their BG and actually want to control it how the healthy whole grains and fruit as part of a low-fat diet are working out for them.
This guy sounds like he is actually on the payroll of some fruit juice association. Troll alert!
Yes, Atkins took so much vicious, pig-headed abuse from the dietary establishment — and as it turns out he was right and they were wrong about almost everything.
I’ll grant you — it is counterintuitive, very counterintuitive to say what Americans need is more fat in their diet and a lot less sugar. That fruit juice isn’t much different from soda. That adding more fat and dietary cholesterol would help people to lose weight and improve their outcomes for heart disease, and, if Perlmutter is right, for Alzheimer’s as well. But it is where a lot of science seems to be pointing.
What I find inexcusable is people in positions of authority continuing to carry on as if nothing has changed in the last 30 years, continuing to cling to the low-fat diet dogma. Meanwhile we are headed for 100 million obese Americans who are going to die prematurely in huge numbers of heart disease, diabetes and complications, and obesity-associated cancers. This is to such a large degree preventable.
It’s actually a very exciting time for this field. There is so much new information being discovered and such tremendous opportunities for improvements in public health. It’s not the end of the scientific work to figure out what we should be eating, it’s not even the beginning of the end, to paraphrase Churchill, but it may be the end of the beginning.
Look at the state of American public health and you can at least have a pretty good idea of what doesn’t work. It’s a pity there are still physicians out there still defending it.
Thank you, Tom Boyer, for that level-headed reply to Brittdoc. He/she sounds just like the dogmatic doctor I have been trying to avoid all my life. And unfortunately he/she says he/she is a young doctor. I had hoped that old-fashioned dogmatic ideas would be dying out soon as older doctors retired, but oh no, here comes another generation.
I particularly object to the statement that Atkins was a fad diet. So far from the truth. My son’s life was saved by following his protocol. Just as we see here, people don’t actually look at what Atkins advised, bt simply spout the stuff that they read in magazines or hear from their friends. All the objections I hear are based on the induction phase of two weeks — seems like detractors couldn’t be bothered to read the whole story.
I am not saying that the Atkins way is perfect — it worked for my son, who went from 130kg and a fatty liver to 83 kg and health, and I am not sure about everything that Perlmutter is saying yet, but am willing to keep informed. The more research I read into our health, the more I think that Atkins was unfairly villified. Reminds me of what Monsanto did to scientists who pointed out the dangers of GM.
BTW, there was a British doctor called John Yudkin, who authored a book called This Slimming Business in 1970. He also advocated low carb eating. He was my first introduction to thinking about what I eat. Unfortunately the lowfat craze started shortly afterwards, and he hasn’t got the recognition he deserves.
There is a lot more research to be done, but Brittdoc is saying dangerous things without backing them up with real data.
Choose your physician with care!
You sound so confident, Brittdoc, but you are simply wrong. Fructose is fructose, sucrose is sucrose, glucose is glucose.
Why don’t you try to find a source for your assertion that fructose in fruit is somehow different chemically from fructose in corn syrup (i.e. Sprite).
Why don’t you explain to me how 20 grams of sugar in apple juice has a different effect on the body than 20 grams of sugar in soda. There is chemically no difference. And don’t talk to me about micronutrients. Explain to me how “fruit fructose” is chemically different from “corn syrup” fructose. I bet it will sound like those claims that “organic” sugar is different from table sugar. Or sea salt is different from Morton’s.
You are spouting the same misinformation that doctors have spouted for 3 decades in advocating a diet that is undoubtedly linked to an unprecedented epidemic of obesity, diabetes and — now — Alzheimers.
I’m not saying there are easy answers or explanations here. In fact that is precisely my point. The status quo of dietary advice has failed our population. We are dying, millions of us, eating the diet that the American and British medical establishment advised us to eat.
I suspect HFCS in a can of soda probably does not send any signaling of satiety to the brain, but eating a banana with some berries would due to the extra nutrients. So then people drink the sprite, then figure.. I’m hungry and have a banana. So at least fruit is filling you up a bit. I don’t eat huge amounts of fruit. In a day I have 1/4 blueberries, 1 banana, 3 kiwi fruit. Sometimes I’ll have an organic raisan bar directly after a workout (nothing in it but raisans, sultanas, touch of honey, wrapped in a thin wholemeal shell).
Hi Marc,
Thanks for your cautions. I agree that ultra-low fat is a terrible idea, which is why I am not following the plan as it is laid out in the book. I am eating good amounts of avocado, nuts, coconut and some oil for dressings and butter for cooking. Still, this is much less fat than I was eating on the keto diet, and I still get hungry between meals.
Also, remember that I have 20 pounds of fat to lose. So if I am actually losing weight on this diet, my body is also metabolizing my body fat. That may be why thin vegans get so sick if they continue the low-fat eating–their body and brain become fat starved. That won’t happen in my case any time soon!
Yes, Perlmutter–I do remember him (ha ha, that’s what started this epic thread). Once I am able to lose this weight, I will likely transition to more of a Perlmutter diet. I also plan to buy the Wahls Protocol book when it comes out. That also focuses on nutrient density, which is what I like the most about the Eat to Live approach (but I trust Terry Wahl more on what foods are the most nutrient dense and what the essential components of a long-term diet should be).
Hi Tom,
Actually, this 20 pounds is not the last 20 pounds, but rather the same first 20 pounds that I have ever gained over my healthy weight (except for my pregnancies), which I have gained and lost at least twice.
The first time I lost it with low carb and it was quick and easy, and I felt fabulous, but then carb creep set in and I gained it back. Since then I have tried keto (down to 30 grams of carbs) but without losing and I was even gaining (plus having problems sleeping and palpitations). Recently I decided to take a break from low carb, at least for awhile, because I had gotten to the point that I literally couldn’t stomach the food any longer and I was fatigued all the time. I felt like I just needed to change things up a bit.
You are right about the low-fat veganish eating–I get a bit irritable between meals. I feel like my body is liking the micronutrients from all the veggies though–my energy is good. I don’t feel like I am getting sugar crashes, because I am not eating any grains at all and I am limiting starchy vegetables and fruit. I think the fiber load is enough to prevent the peaking and crashing, though I suppose my blood sugar may be somewhat elevated over a longer period.
One insight that I got from the Eat to Live is, I think, worth the price I paid for the book: to really be healthy we need to NOT be overweight. Of course I knew that, but he really drives it home in that book. He says to prevent/reverse heart disease, people need to really be thin. Part of the reason I have not been feeling well may be that the fat around my middle is wreaking havoc with my system. I just really feel that it needs to go, and I am going to try different plans until I get there. Once I stop losing with the plan I am doing now I will definitely look into the fasting idea!
Yes, by all means lose weight… But with a a few cautions.
If you read some of the Vegan and Raw Vegan blogs and vids you will notice a rash a deaths. They cant understand why vegans are dropping dead. They are eating “Healthy” and were nice and thin.
Vegans can become very thin, too thin. They also become depressed and infertile too often. They may have traded one problem, belly fat, for other problems. Fruit for example will put fat around your heart and liver but not your belly and hips.. So you can get skinny but less healthy.. Skinny and infertile, depressed or even dead is not desirable.
Dr. Perlmutter ( remember him?) eats mostly vegetarian but minus all grains and with lots of added fat. That is the key, enough fat and no grains. Low fat and vegetarian or Vegan is a recipe for disaster.
Mary, I agree, a real-time insulin metering system would be a great help to all of us.
Once you get to a healthy weight, losing the last 10-20 pounds is REALLY hard pretty much no matter what method you do.
Obviously you can lose the last 20 eating high-carb vegan, but you have to do it the old fashioned way with calorie restriction and/or exercise. And that means putting up with a lot of hunger and probably a blood-sugar roller coaster.
My personality is affected when I eat that way. I have a tendency to get very mean and nasty at the bottom of the blood sugar roller coaster when I’m ravenous — kind of like those old Disney cartoons when Mickey hallucinates his friend Donald as a roast duck.
IMHO you could lose the last 20 a lot more painlessly by going low-carb AND low-calorie.
One way to do it is the “fast” diet. There is recent book out about this — for 2-3 days a week you “fast” on about 600 calories, but make those calories as much fat and protein as you can (especially protein, so your body doesn’t try to burn your muscles), and you don’t have the hunger pangs beating on you all day. I’ve done that, it’s remarkably painless, but it is still a routine that is hard to sustain, and to do the last 20 pounds you have to sustain it for 3 months or so.
Interesting discussion, including the fact that beaker is so ripped (good for you beak ;-).
Seriously, I too am so discouraged by all the competing claims and counter claims. One thing that I think everyone (everyone here, anyway) would agree on is that it’s unhealthy to be overweight, especially when fat is accumulating around the middle.
So, I have decided to basically do whatever it takes diet-wise to lose the 20 or so extra pounds I am carrying around (I want to be like you beak–six pack here I come!). I have specifically decided to look at plans other than low-carb paleo-type plans, which obviously are not working for me anymore. I even read a book called Eat to Live that recommends veganism (or quasi-veganism at the very least), and is supposed to be about nutrient density (and yes, it’s true, this guy makes the exact opposite claims regarding saturated fat/animal protein from what we hear in “our” world–what gives???).
I am not doing this plan as is (it’s extremely low fat/protein) but I have been inspired by it to include tons more vegetables, including raw vegetables, to quit snacking COMPLETELY between meals, to cut all dairy except for butter, limit the oil I use in dressings and for cooking and to try adding beans to see what happens. So far, so good–I have lost a few pounds and I feel pretty good. I do get hungry between meals, but I’m starting to think that I part of my problem has been the need to never be hungry. If I just chill when I start getting hungry it seems to go away.
Of course I have been wondering what is happening to my blood sugar after an Eat-to-Live-inspired meal. I have a meter, but I need to purchase some new strips. The problem, though, is that my blood glucose after a meal will not be any indication of what my insulin level is like, which is what is more concerning. Does anyone know of any way I could evaluate this? My doctor is never willing to order test like this, so that is not an option.
If not, would I be able to judge just according to whether or not I lose weight on this plan? I’m assuming that if my insulin is running high due to the high carb intake, I would NOT lose weight–is that accurate?
If I can add just one or two more words about eating fruit, I would point out that modern fruit has been manipulated to be much sweeter and less fibrous than what was found in the wild.
Natural fruit, the kind our ancestors ate, was much smaller, harder and far less sweet, almost sour.
Plus, as Tom pointed out, when nature makes fruit is wraps it within lots of fiber. Sugar cane is looks like a tree branch. If you try to get the sweetness out of it, you would need to chew through wood.
Sugar is sugar is sugar. Fructose builds fat around the heart and liver.. Cavet Emptor
And chewing it is exactly how people got that sweetness. Same can be done with a variety of plants, including grass. Masticate the plant fiber, swallowing the juice, but not the fiber/cellulose. Takes some effort to get to that sweetness.
Live on fruit if you want, Robbie. But read about Steve Jobs and his carrot/apple diet (which is discussed in the new Water Isaacson biography). Jobs’ pancreatic cancer was probably not a spontaneous random occurrence.
Fructose is fructose. It is a total mythology that “fruit” fructose is different from “corn” fructose. It is the same molecule. Fructose in “high fructose corn syrup” is absolutely the same chemical as fructose in fruit. I almost hate to tell people that because no one wants to hear the can of Sprite is packed with the same exact stuff as a banana.
Yes, I’m familiar with the Robert Lustig video (which is great stuff). Lustig does not in any way argue that fructose in fruit is different from fructose in soda. His argument is that the plant material (largely fiber) packaging the fructose ameliorates the impact of the fructose on the body. In particular it dampens the impact on blood sugar. Also, fruit helps fill you up so you don’t consume as much sugar. A lot of people drink 40 or 50 ounces of soda a day (I probably did at times in my life) but they’re unlikely to eat 10 bananas. So Lustig is saying, if you avoid refined sugar and get your sugar from food, you are cutting out most of the danger, and I think that is a valid thing to say.
I just think fruit should not get a free pass. People are definitely waking up to the fact that orange juice is NOT how most people should start their day. Apple juice is NOT good baby food. I think people should look a lot harder at the super-sugary supermarket fruit in general — Thompson Grapes, navel oranges, Cavendish bananas, even modern apples that have been bred for extreme sweetness. It’s not as concentrated a source of fructose as corn syrup or soda, but if soda didn’t exist, fruit juice would be right up there.
Sugary fruit is like candy. I don’t think fruit is equivalent to cigarettes. But I think people are in denial about the downside of fruit almost in the way people were blind to the downside of cigarettes. If you largely take sugar (in all forms) out of your diet, you will feel an enormous difference and you see how much impact that sugar has on almost every single function of your body. For some people the result is not a good feeling but for a lot of people it is. Count me among the latter.
Hi Tom,
Yes, pancreatic cancer could be caused by wrong food intake, from fruit, I doubt it.
Funnily enough, I had that argument with a work colleague the other day. He said that my high intake of fructose would cause my pancreas to produce too much insulin, hence the cancer possibility.
I told him that in order to digest the fructose from fruit, the body does not need to produce any insulin (look up fructose metabolism in any 1st year biochemistry book -> not involving the pancreas)
Then he changed his mind and said: “Maybe it is because the pancreas is underused then.”
So far, not very convincing for me. Also, with all arguments around Steve Jobs’ problems, the only thing I could find was “suspicions” that his high fruit intake could have caused it, but no proof whatsoever.
Pancreas cancer can also be caused by radioactivity and long term exposure to electromagnetic fields. Not sure what Steve has been playing with in his life..
Robert Lustig does make a distinction between fructose from fruit and other sources. It is somewhere in the first third of the video where he says: “Fructose, and I don’t mean fructose from fruit… causes…..”
When he talks about fructose he is always referring to the artificial one. I had to watch the video twice to get this, because first, I could not believe what he was saying about it. The comments on youtube also refer to this misunderstanding.
I am not sure why you take it as a myth that “fruit” fructose is different from “corn” fructose.
It is a known fact that artificially created supplements are not absorbed by the body the same way that natural minerals are, even though identical in chemical structure.
Sorry, no reference at hand right now for that one.
You are saying that fruit is equivalent to cigarettes and that it makes addictive.
Well, my own experience right now (I have started to live on fruit 3 weeks ago) is that I am craving cooked foods as much as I have been craving cigarettes when I was still smoking. It is not the fruit I am craving at all!
Just because it is sweet, it does not mean that it is like candy. Processed sugar (and I do not even mean artificial fructose here) is addictive. Try giving it to a baby and watch how that baby will not loose sight of you while you are in the room.
Oh by the way, tomato, cucumber, avocado, pumkin, squash, zucchini, capsicum, chilli – those are all fruit as well even though we classify them as vegetables. Nothing sweet about those…
Anyway, you have your beliefs and I have mine. The question is on what knowledge are those build on.
I have tried to stay away from all science as I have found only conflicting information in that area.
Instead, I ask myself:
What does nature want us to eat?
And I use reasoning, history (factual and biblical), scientific analysis of the biochemistry structure of humans, experiences of other fruitarians and personal experiences as the basis for my understanding.
And talking about personal experiences, when I went on a fruit diet last year, I did it for 3 months. After 2 months the most incredible changes occurred in how the body functions.
Just to name two:
No more sunburn, even after being exposed to the sun all day (except from 12-2) in the Australian tropics.
No more toilet paper (an invention of humans, because the food intake is wrong and digestion does not work as suspected).
So I am not sure if you have ever tried it. It is hard, as you get cravings, feel the detox and have to confront your own mind.
But until you do, all that can be said is what others have written with no own experience to check whether it is actually true.
When you talk about people being blind to some things. Yes, we all have our illusions of the world. You got it, too though. 😉
Alright, off to return to Eden now
All the best on your own journey.
Robbie
Hi there Robbie,
One thing about your comment that I am really starting to relate to is the bit about staying away from science given all the conflicting notions. When people (including MDs and other seeming authorities) are claiming the EXACT OPPOSITE on certain points based on the same scientific studies (or selected studies among the huge pool of studies) one starts to realize that we cannot really believe any science-based claims.
At this point, I am taking everything I read about nutrition as a theory, no matter what the author claims about it!
I bow down to you and your amazing body, Beaker. Why are you reading this thread — let alone posting so much — if you have nothing to worry about?
Seriously, you’re right there are contradictory findings and beliefs on so many things. The quality of research in the field of nutrition/dietary science is so abysmal that the whole field is considered by some to be a pseudoscience, kind of like psychology came to be seen in the 70s and 80s as Freudian theory and all its tentacles collapsed.
Unfortunately there is no unbiased authority to help you separate the stupid diet research from the good research. The government and most of the health advocacy groups have a lot of agendas and financial interests that shape their outlook. I don’t know who to trust.
There are only two things coming out of the recent research that seem pretty solid — not religion, just findings on the verge of being well established theory. The first is a growing understanding (I wouldn’t call it a consensus but it is a very solid run of findings) that sugar and refined carbs are bad for you in multiple ways — though even then, detrimental to some people more than other people, and exactly HOW detrimental it is hard to say. But yes, Virginia, sugar DOES cause diabetes and heart disease. That should be a big duh but unfortunately a lot of doctors, including even diabetes doctors, are still resisting that idea.
The second finding that has been demonstrated, overwhelmingly and repeatedly, in excellent studies, is that “Mediterranean” (meaning higher fat, lower carb, more protein,fish, vegetables, less starch and grain) produces better health outcomes.
The rest of it — seeds, vitamins, organic/nonorganic, green smoothies, fermented foods, fish oil and other supplements, blueberry extract, red wine, chocolate etc.. — I think people should believe what they want to believe, eat the foods they want to eat (as long as they don’t go too heavy on carbs), and let that old placebo effect do its magic! Because regardless of what you read in the newspaper, there is no clear plan of action backed by research. You might as well use astrology to choose what to eat for dinner.
I’m posting so much because I became more interested in nutrition last year. I then got sucked into the relentless vortex and have been trying to make sense of it all. Turns out it was a slippery slope which ultimately has made me feel that it’s all over analysed and overhyped. Now why is this? Because the diet industry is multi-billion dollar (everything from foods, supplements, lectures, blogging and more). My 98 year old grandmother is fit as a fiddle, still drives and works part time. She doesn’t give too much thought to diet other than: you are what you eat & everything in moderation. AND she adds to this her philosophy of life: work hard, keep moving and never, ever stress about anything, ever. It has served her well. So in some ways there are 4 main components to health:
1. you are what you eat
2. everything in moderation
3. no room for stress
4. work hard / exercise
Now if you apply the 4 points above, the food industry, diet and diet blog industry instantly miss out on 100’s of billions of dollars. Could a healthy life be as simple as those 4 steps? I guess I will be a living experiment. I’ll post back here every 10 years for an update. After going from not knowing much about diet/nutrition, to falling into the rabbit hole I think it’s time to take a step back from the madness. Thanks Grandma, I think I’ll follow your lead..
Part of my problem with this thread is that most advice/assumptions made here are directed to those who need to lose weight. My situation seems to throw a spanner in the works because I am 40, 5-11, 165lbs highly athletic (exercise 12-15hrs a week at minimum), when not exercising I use a standing desk all day, etc. I am basically totally ripped with no body fat that I can see. I am pretty much all muscle, a 6pack with no abdominal fat, etc. I would hate to think what would happen to me if I went into ketosis and my body began to burn what little fat is left. I think I would begin to look grotesque. My diet is 100% whole foods. Roughly- variety of vegetables, home made yogurt, home made kefir, aged cheddar, berries, kiwis, some banana, ground flax, variety of organic nut and seed butters, home made sourdough bread, legumes, eggs, meat a couple times a week, occasional fish, coconut oil, organic butter, various herbs and spices, high quality fish oil, emu oil, RO water, lemon water, coconut water, etc. I recently had a full cardio workup (treadmill test, ECG, echocardiogram) the cardiologist said I was top 1% that he can’t recall seeing anyone my age in such condition. I haven’t tried to determine my carb intake but a rough guess would be 300-500 a day. I feel phenomenal, high energy, mentally sharp, mood is great. I meditate regularly and stress levels are low. Now, if I present my routine to nutritionists, dieticians, pale dieters, LCHF dieters, GAPS dieters, FODMAP dieters, Perfect Health Dieters, Atkins and 100 other dieters on various diets -one thing is certain. 100 people would say keep up the great work! And 100 people would say I’m killing myself and dying. I’m not sure I am cut out for trying to find the right diet. Everything contradicts everything.. 10 reasons not to eat legumes, 10 reasons to eat legumes and on and on and on. It’s a minefield of good studies, dubious studies, flawed studies, studies propped up by industry. Various diet regimes have become churches with evangelical followers lining the pews and judging those who don’t believe. Their bible and god is the right one, and I’m set to burn in nutritional hell.. I’m slowly heading to the approach of eat whole foods and avoid all junk foods, exercise regularly, don’t sit around, keep stress levels way low and get on with life. If that’s going to kill me then so be it.
One misnomer I would like to clear up: if you went into Ketosis (which you do every night you go to sleep. how else is your brain getting glucose?) you don’t just burn your body fat, you are burning the fat that you have ingested. So suppose you have zero body fat (which is highly unlikely or else your internal organs would have no cushion), and you have been eating big chunks of cheese for a week. Your body would be burning the fat in the cheese, not necessarily your body’s fat. What Atkins was trying to achieve was getting your body to burn both fat and sugars during your waking hours. Unfortunately, because people eat a high starch/sugar diet, they never go into ketosis for any length of time, something our ancestors regularly went into.
The part about exercise and stress free thoughts is key though, Too many focus strictly on diet, and not about their activity and mental health. Our ancestors were very active creatures. Sitting at a desk all day does all kinds of harm to our bodies.
Since your level of activity is much higher than the average person, you can consume more carbs without gaining weight. But that would also be true if you ate a higher fat diet. The problem I think you are having is you are trying to put everything into nice neat categories. I would suggest learning more about human metabolism from a good A&P source. This is the basis everyone should start at.
Paleo can get a little dogmatic about beans IMHO.
To me, beans need to be considered like root vegetables — something to be eaten in small quantities. They are highly concentrated calories and they are also carb calories so they flow RIGHT into your fat cells.
I don’t ever eat a big baked potato any more, but I will cut a little bit of potato, sweet potato, parsnip or carrot into a stew.
Similarly, I would avoid a pile of beans in chili or a bean burrito, and pasta e fagioli is a total carb calorie bomb, delicious but BAD.
But I will have a FEW black beans in soup or some lovely French flageolets if I’m making a cassoulet.
If you’re trying to lose weight, avoid starches completely. But if you’re in maintenance mode, you can allow them in with very limited quantites IMHO.
I agree with you, Tom…FWIW, so does Dr. Perlmutter.
Beans (chick peas, garbanzo beans-low in phytic acid) and tubers (sweet potatoes) are often components of my 55-75 grams of daily carbs. There are excellent health benefits from both.
Think moderation.
> Chickpeas are phenomenal for blood sugar, yet they are extremely high carbs.
————-
More junk science. Legumes are most certainly NOT “phenomenal” for blood sugar. They raise your blood sugar for a sustained period of time, and they are a very high calorie food, so they are very fattening if you eat them in quantity.
If you have diabetes, sugars, grains and yes, legumes are not what you should be building a diet around. Many in the medical profession are still “treating” diabetics by having them eat carb food and then inject themselves with prescription meds. Good for drug companies, good for generating billings for the doctor, not so great for patients.
I love beans but they should be eaten sparingly, occasionally, with plenty of protein, fat and veggies.
Just try living on beans and tortillas for a little while and see what happens to your waistline — which by the way is a pretty good indication of what’s happening to your diabetes and heart disease risk.
Can some anti-carbers comment on this info regarding beans?
———————–
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/conditions/beans-good-for-your-heart—and-blood-sugar/article4266465/
For people who have diabetes, controlling blood glucose is paramount in preventing long-term complications such as heart disease, nerve damage and kidney disease. For people with pre-diabetes, managing blood glucose levels can prevent a future diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes.
Diet is a key to blood sugar management, whether a person is taking diabetes medication or not. When added to a high-fibre diet or a low-glycemic diet (one with complex carbohydrates that allow the slow release of sugar into the bloodstream), legumes have been found to lower fasting blood glucose and insulin readings.
Research even suggests that eating legumes can substantially reduce the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes.
In the new study, researchers from the Risk Factor Modification Centre at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto analyzed the results of 41 randomized controlled experimental trials to assess the evidence that beans benefit blood sugar control.
The trials were conducted in a total of 1,674 people with and without diabetes. The review included studies measuring blood glucose control when legumes were eaten alone, when added to a high-fibre diet, or when part of a low-glycemic diet.
When eaten on their own or part of a high-fibre or low-glycemic diet, legumes lowered fasting glucose and insulin levels. Legumes were also found to improve glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), a marker for longer-term blood sugar control. (The HbA1c blood test provides an average of blood glucose measurements over the past six to 12 weeks.) In fact, when legumes were eaten as part of a high-fibre or low-glycemic diet, the significant reduction in HbA1c seen in people with Type 2 diabetes was comparable to that achieved by oral medications.
The blood-glucose-lowering effect of legumes was strongest for chickpeas. But benefit was also seen with black beans, pinto beans and red and white kidney beans. And it didn’t take a large portion to see improvement in blood sugar control. Eating only ahalf cup (125 ml) lowered fasting glucose and insulin levels.”
———————–
So… Chickpeas are phenomenal for blood sugar, yet they are extremely high carbs. This seems to fly in the face of carbs wreaking havoc on blood sugar, so what gives?
“Atkins for Life” by Robert C. Atkins: page 42 “step 5: Beans and Legumes. Don’t skip lentils, kidney beans, pinto beans, black beans, and some fifty other varieties of legumes. Their relatively high carb content is offset quite a bit by their high fiber content, which slows their impact on blood sugar. Nonetheless, you still need to keep the portions small. You’ll get about 12 grams of Net Carbs from just a quarter-cup of cooked beans. By themselves or added to soups, stew, and sauces, beans are very satisfying.”
I think if you picked up a copy from your local library and actually read it, you can save everyone a lot of time.
From :”New Atkins Diet for a New You”.. latest edition
“Eat absolutely no fruit, bread, pasta, grains, starchy vegetables or dairy products other than cheese, cream or butter. Do not eat nuts or seeds in the first two weeks. Foods that combine protein and carbohydrates, such as chickpeas, kidney beans and other legumes, are not permitted at this time.”
Beans are clearly not phenomenal for blood sugar control. They are better than processed foods for sure since they have a good deal of fiber. Atkins does not allow them when you are trying to induce your metabolism to switch from sugar burning to fat burning. You can use them a later in Atkins in low amounts. That is not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Legumes are shunned more strictly on the Paleo Diet. They are low in nutritional value. They also contain properties that prevent nutrients from other foods from being absorbed properly and they may help to cause leaky gut syndrome.
Here is a link to a good article, “10 Reasons to Avoid Eating Legumes”
https://paleomagazine.com/paleo-why-legumes-are-bad
Two very interesting links about the dangers of carbohydrate overfeeding with respect to cancer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40
https://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/way-exploit-metabolic-quirk-cancer
Thanks Mary, The second link led me to some interesting places. 🙂