My understanding is that naturally occurring fructose found in whole fruits is accompanied by fiber, vitamins, and minerals, which help mitigate any negative effects of fructose when consumed as part of a balanced diet.
However, it sounds like we should maybe be avoiding excessive amounts of certain fruit. See: A Definitive Guide to Fructose Content in Fruit [1]
There was a recent episode from Diary of a CEO with a cancer expert. He seems to have some really sound advice. One particular take away for me was his finding that when the body enters a ketogenic state due to fasting the body produces defences that eat up cancer cells [2]
> One particular take away for me was his finding that when the body enters a ketogenic state due to fasting the body produces defences that eat up cancer cells
“We did indeed see that the ketogenic diet suppressed tumor growth — but we also saw, surprisingly, that it promoted tumor metastasis,” says Gu. “That was really a shock to us.”
I think there's a misunderstanding here, my fault for not being clearer. I think I should have used the phrase 'when the body enters a state of ketosis' i.e. the state you get to when fasting when your body starts burning core fat. I believe the word ketogenic refers to the type of meat heavy diet. Thanks for those links, the fact that eating a lot of meat can promote tumor metastasis does not surprise me.
Ketosis occurs when your body switches from consuming glucose as its primary fuel source to consuming ketones which are generated from the breakdown of fatty acids, either from the diet or endogenous.
Almost all body tissue can run on ketones instead of on glucose, except for certain important tissues like red blood cells, 30% of the brain, retina, some kidney tissue, etc.
For the rest, your body synthesizes the glucose it needs via gluconeogenesis from some protein substrates and from glycerol backbodes from triglycerides. These inputs can be either from the diet or from your fat stores.
Fasting for a few days causes your body to enter authophagy through the inhibition of mTOR in addition to ketosis, so that could account for some of the difference.
Can you comment on the efficacy of intermittent fasting (IF) to get into ketosis? Does fasting have to be undertaken in the order of days in order to be any effective, as opposed to 16 or 18 hours per day by way of IF.
For context, I've been following IF for a couple of years. I can definitely see myself losing my resident body fat, which is encouraging. I had tried keto diet before that - I found it very difficult to sustain, especially when you're away from home or are at work. So, part of my motivation to do IF instead of keto is, well, that I can achieve some level of ketosis via IF, and without following a strict keto diet.
You can get into ketosis on any kind of diet or eating schedule, it mostly relies on avoiding dietary carbohydrates. If you're curious you can get ketone urine sticks, ketone breath tests and even a non-FDA-approved continuous ketone monitor (SiBio). IF can help because it gives you a long period without carbs so you're naturally getting less of them in a given period, unless you then load up on like white bread.
It's mostly a function of what you eat when you do eat.
Dr Thomas Seyfried, the guy in the Diary of a CEO interview, stated that intermittent fasting is beneficial and achieves the desired 'cell repair' effects.
There are plenty of vegetarian ketogenic diets. A ketogenic diet is one that contains very few, or no carbohydrates to maintain the ketosis - just high in fats and medium in proteins. Meat is a convenient form of food with those properties, so often people maintaining such a diet eat a lot of meat.
Just as an aside, as a complete rat lover and obsessed fancy rat freak, I always find it somewhat sad we could probably come up with some great drugs for them (they notoriously die very easily), just, well, who cares about rats???
Vitamin B (thiamine) deficiency is also common among alcoholics. Lots of heavy drinkers out there. While obviously drinking less is the preferred solution, if they aren't willing to do that then supplements can reduce the harm.
Vitamin D from supplements isn't anywhere near as good as getting actual sun exposure because you get a combination of both D3 release mediated by UVB exposure in addition to NO release mediated by UVA. The fact is that unless you're on the express train to Rickets town, it's probably the NO that's most beneficial as it reduces blood pressure and improves cardiovascular outcomes.
Before you go all in on the supplements (a) get measured for vitamin D levels first and (b) if you're anywhere in the ballpark of replete (you probably are) then make an effort to get outside, often, and without sunscreen. To the extent you don't get burned of course.
I didn't downvote, but I can imagine that most people weren't aware of that claim. I'm skeptical of it as well since I'm not aware of any research that shows fructose in fruit increasing over time.
Commercial incentives are to engineer varietals for contemporary aesthetics (sweet, unbitter, colorful, unblemished, large) and crop turnover (rapid growth, tolerance for depleted soil), nutrition has been way down on the priority list for nearly a century now.
If you don't believe food is sweeter and less nutritious, you're firing a shot at many-billion-dollar industries that have been earnestly been trying to optimize the above for all that time.
It's not a pleasant thing to believe, but its hard to refute.
IIRC, You should be able to do your own deep dives here:
The food industry, like any other industry, focuses on numbers. Consumer spending favors new varieties of fruit with sweeter taste (e.g., increased glucose/fructose content). This process has led to our current comical situation where fruit, which is perceived as natural, has become unfit for consumption by animals.
>Fruits have gotten too sweet for some animals and zookeepers have had to find alternative foods.
There is a large and wealthy segment of the population concerned about food health and quality, and large companies who market to them. Are their values not being met? Or are you just describing the quality received by the average consumer.
Based on my experience of having moved countries, I can tell you that many types of fruit in this new country(AU) is definitely a lot more sweet than what I am used to. This is not scientific research of course and it could be attributed to many things(soil, environment, fertilizer etc) besides favoring the sweeter lineage but I have noticed that it made me stop eating them.
Now a Granny Smith apple here may be different to the Granny Smith apple I used to eat but this is just to illustrate that I am not comparing two different kinds of apples.
If you're older I think some of this is obvious. Biggest example for me is grapefruit, they used to be barely sweet, when I was a kid they were mostly bitter and we used to add sugar to them, now they're always extremely sweet.
This may differ based on location, as my grapefruit (non organic normal supermarket bought) are still quite bitter. I'm located in Europe so these might be Spanish grapefruit, though not sure.
Your palette changes pretty significantly over time, especially between childhood and adulthood. Grapefruit may not have changed at all, and you might still find them sweeter at 30 than you did at 8.
My parents' generation used to add sugar to everything because they considered sugar a source of energy.
I remember eating strawberries directly from the plant, and they were sweet. However, my aunt would serve the same strawberries with sugar as an afternoon snack.
Because it's not a factual statement. It's a "truthy" sounding statement, but the person making it didn't actually go and look it up, which they could've done in seconds on the device they're currently using.
It's practically the definition of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Based on no evidence "I think there's a danger because it's feels like there's a danger!"
Going to go out on a limb here and say you probably shouldn't get any scientific advice about nutrition -- or really any scientific advice at all -- from anyone on Diary Of A CEO.
I don't like the interviewer, but just three weeks ago, Eric Schmidt was on the podcast and he is obviously very smart and knowledgeable about technology and business.
If you're going to make a bold claim like that, shouldn't you provide some support? Otherwise you're expecting us to just take an anonymous person's word for it... and particularly a throwaway account.
You're saying "discount science based not on facts, but on the form in which such science is published" which is utterly unscientific
Not only does that also not make sense, but guests on the show are not strictly CEOs, which further supports the view that this shallow dismissal is indeed unsupported by evidence.
It's a podcast. They're only useful for entertainment. If you take advice from them in a meaningful way you're effectively rolling the dice on tabloid grade slop factories.
In general yes, but there are some good guests that were there. For example, in case of nutrition, Dr. Layne Norton called him out on having a guy that was talking nonsense on the podcast and then they got in touch with Layne and had him on the podcast where he explained many of the misinformation about nutrition currently in wild.
Norwitz and Layne differ on the lean mass hyper-responder phenotype. Norwitz likes referencing his meta-analysis of 41 RCTs, but pay attention to its conclusion:
> A substantial increase in LDL cholesterol is likely for individuals with low but not high BMI with consumption of an LCD, findings that may help guide individualized nutritional management of cardiovascular disease risk. As carbohydrate restriction tends to improve other lipid and nonlipid risk factors, the clinical significance of isolated LDL cholesterol elevation in this context warrants investigation.
"warrants investigation"??? Come back when you have hard outcomes, i.e. reduced MACE. His meta-analysis of RCTs concludes that some people on keto have increased LDL! Norwitz admits in another video: "No, I'm not going to say that high ApoB is fine... ApoB is necessary but not sufficient [to cause ASCVD]" https://youtu.be/270ZyfSGLkE?t=484
So, what "humiliation"? If high ApoB (synonymous with LDL for our purposes) is bad, why would you go on a diet that causes it?
Layne has a large lay audience, and he has to stick to his main message: that w/r/t diet, calories are all that matter. Lowcarb/lowfat/vegan/whatever is fine. Platforming someone who's obsessed with LMHR is going to be too much biochemistry for Layne's audience. And for an effect that's relevant to perhaps only 2% of people? Low-carb advocates have their own YouTube channels; there's no reason Layne, as a center-aisle scientist, needs to engage.
Until the LMHR has been shown to have reduced MACE, which Norwitz admits we don't have evidence for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxRLRYEQaEs&t=971s I don't see the point of Layne platforming him to just talk about biochemistry and confuse people.
Okay, but the parent was implying that would discredit the interviewee. One thing I've observed with people that have an important message to disseminate is they are not fussy about what the medium is
If you have significant financial interest in a product or service you're not going to bring on someone who will meaningfully oppose that product or service. Therefore anyone who goes onto that podcast, or whatever media, would be selected for.
It absolutely does matter?? If you're trying to do reference class forecasting and your class is "a person who is not a CEO" and then you're forecasting based on anecdata of "people who are a CEO" you're not going to get good predictions.
people on the show aren't strictly "CEOs" in the truest sense of that word. just to pick an obvious counterexample, Robert Greene is an author, not a CEO, and he was a guest
It would still be net beneficial for anyone consuming industrial fructose to switch to fresh fruit of any kind. However, yes, if you’ve already withdrawn added fructose in processed foods and drinks from your diet, you could certainly optimize further on which kinds of fresh fruit you consume. It won’t make any difference if you still drink fructose soda, though.
HFCS is 42-55% fructose whereas table sugar (sucrose) is ... 50-50 glucose to fructose. You will still get roughly the same total exposure to fructose (maybe even more) by switching to table sugar.
The only difference is that sucrose has to be broken down into glucose and fructose by sucrase, so the exposure is somewhat smoother instead of hitting you all at once, although humans have more than enough sucrase to make it a pretty quick process.
I thought levels of fructose weren't as important as other qualities, like fiber content. For example, Dates are often referenced as a good fruit option due to the high fiber content but that guide doesn't mention fiber at all and has dates in the high fructose category. This seems like standard operating procedure in anything dietary where it is more about a specific aspect of the food and less about communicating well rounded advice.
> I thought levels of fructose weren't as important as other qualities, like fiber content.
> Dates are often referenced as a good fruit option
fyi, 100gr of dried dates it like 3 to 4 times the average amount of sugar recommended per day. Just 2 medjool dates and you hit your daily sugar recommendation.
At the end of the day your body will have to process the stuff you ingest, if it comes with fibers the digestion will be slower, but if you eat too much of X Y Z day after day it's just a matter of time before your body gives up
I believe you'll meet the "Added or Free sugar" recommendation with 2 medjool dates, but AFAIK, the guideline isn't as strict on naturally occurring sugars, if there is any guideline at all aside from general carb consumption. Dates also have a surprisingly low glycemic index for how sweet they are.
Dried fruits have the same amount of sugar as fresh, but all the fiber is removed so you absorb all of that sugar. When discussing the nutritional value of fruits and why sugar from fruits isn't "bad" for you, it should be assumed you're discussing fresh and not dried fruit.
Fruits are very low density thanks to all that water and undigestible fibre. You would get hella bored eating enough fruit to make it problematic. There's 9g of sugar in an orange, and a can of coke has 39g. You'd have to eat a pound or so of oranges to equal a single can of coke. The issue isn't the fruit.
The rankings are a little off... I mean, you don't eat one prune, or one apricot. You tend to have a few, and that would put them right up next to, say, an apple, in the "medium" ranks.
That's the same as that "Serving Size" trick on nutrition information guides where the "serving size" is 5 potato chips instead of the entire bag.
Fruit has changed dramatically over the last Century. I imagine there was a time when it was much smaller, less sweet, and only available seasonally. In this new world, we have 24/7/365 access to as much and whatever we want.
There are Cherries along with every type of fruit you could want at Costco today and it's December.
Except the fruit in the past was often available out of season but as pickling or preserves, via either excesses of salt or sugar. For several centuries. Let alone the parts of the world that don't really have four seasons, instead having only two, wet and dry seasons. The point being I'm not sure how much relatively recent norms will actually be able to tell us about health.
Cherries out of season are wrinkly and weird tasting, unless Costco has solved that. Cherries and pomegranates are my two most "seasonal" fruits, in contrast to the always-available ones. I feel like mangoes and cantaloupes have seasons too, I just don't know how to detect them since they keep selling them even when they're not good.
I don't know about that, but there does appear to be a tradeoff between nutrition and fertility. When you eat less, you're less fertile. When you're less fertile, you live longer. A lot of what appears to allow us to live longer is lower rates of cancer, but the data I've seen there isn't rock solid and it isn't something I've dug deeply into. I only mention it because it's certainly studied and a question worth pursuing, with very interesting papers available if you look.
Something I read recently was about eunuchs living something like 25% longer than intact counterparts. However, the data was limited (15 each of eunuchs and intact as I recall). There were very few confounding factors, however. Really interesting stuff.
Obviously yes, so is most chronic disease, but bring up people being healed by lifestyle & diet intervention and prepare for relentless attacks from both doctors and laypeople.
Life expectancy also goes up as lives get westernized, so people live long enough to become adults and die from cancer, rather than Malaria, diarrhea, etc
Are there any culture that fast in a way that would matter here ? Most of fasting traditions are mostly performative. The average joe probably fasted more by default a few thousand years ago than most people do now
Diary of a CEO should not have the proxy-BBC approval Steven enjoys. He regularly has quacks and misinformation pedallers on there shamelessly, and his willingness to fall under their spell demostrates concerning levels of naivete or (worse) willing negligence for engagements sake.
However, it sounds like we should maybe be avoiding excessive amounts of certain fruit. See: A Definitive Guide to Fructose Content in Fruit [1]
There was a recent episode from Diary of a CEO with a cancer expert. He seems to have some really sound advice. One particular take away for me was his finding that when the body enters a ketogenic state due to fasting the body produces defences that eat up cancer cells [2]
[1] https://iquitsugar.com/blogs/articles/a-definitive-guide-to-...
[2] https://youtu.be/VaVC3PAWqLk?feature=shared