FRUIT: ITS HEALTH BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS

[Spazdog]

My grandfather would cook two sausage patties and then fry two eggs sunny side up in the sausage grease. He would have this with white bread toast buttered with real butter and black coffee.

OH NO! Fatty pork and salmonella eggs with milkfat butter and white bread. That's a recipe for early death right there!

Everyday. No fruit. No vegetables.

Lunch was usually bologna and American cheese on white bread with Miracle Whip and a glass of iced tea. Again no vegetables.

He had shrunk to about 6'3" and weighed about 150 lbs. I was told he had been about 6'5"/200lbs in his prime.

The only excercise he got was mowing the lawn at church and his own lawn with a push mower and walking to church everytime the doors were open

He lived to be 86....which was pretty terrible for him because my grandmother passed away about 12 years earlier and he just wanted to be with her.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Scoot_4_20
Maybe so, but the man is no novice and makes many good points, though I don't agree with him on some things.


his bio reads like Dr. Nick Rivera from the Simpsons...

There are kernels of truth in much of what he said, along with a ton of gross misinformation that ranged from "alarmist" to "almost dangerous".

Most people eat too much, period--and eating less is often the first step to improved health. I'd start by removing twinkies before Apples, though.

Besides that, there's so much mis-information,half-truths and obfuscations in that piece that I don't know where to start, so I won't bother. I'd just ask people to consider the source. I'd also mention that there are a lot of holistic healthcare practitioners that do actually have an understanding of nutrition, so I wouldn't paint them all with the same brush with which I would paint this guy.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The thing with fruit is that (ive read) it may be genetically modified to be sweeter than would be "natural".


There are almost no 'genetically modified' fruits even available for purchase. If by 'genetically modified' you mean 'hybridization', you realize that every fruit, vegetable and every other living organism is a 'hybrid' of some sort. And overwhelmingly, commercial hybrid fruits and vegetables are bred more for storage and transport than for taste.

 

[Scoot_4_20]

Originally Posted By: JOD

his bio reads like Dr. Nick Rivera from the Simpsons...


1968-1972: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. B.S. degree awarded in June 1972.

The Simpsons went to MIT?

Originally Posted By: JOD
I'd start by removing twinkies before Apples, though.


Me and most of the people that see Dr Wilson probably removed Twinkies from our diets decades ago, but I can see where removing Twinkies might be good info for the typical BITOG member, because Dr Wilson and I probably forgot more about nutrition than most of you ever knew or will know about it.

 

[crinkles]

whole fruit is OK, because you get so much fibre in it that you couldn't eat enough of the fruit sugars to cause trouble.

Fruit juice is all the sugars dissolved, with no fibre. not good for you!

That being said, even some diabetics can't eat some types of whole fruit. I know a guy who couldn't eat anything but papayas.

 

[crinkles]

as soon as the Dr started talking yin, i switched off!

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Scoot_4_20
Me and most of the people that see Dr Wilson probably removed Twinkies from our diets decades ago, but I can see where removing Twinkies might be good info for the typical BITOG member, because Dr Wilson and I probably forgot more about nutrition than most of you ever knew or will know about it.


You should be allowed to remove this part as it is nothing but a cheap shot. Really hurts the credibility of the poster when they make sweeping generalizations.

as I said before, WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT. What heals you may kill me.

 

[Scoot_4_20]

I see what you mean Steve but many of the repliers' best defenses so far has been to call Dr Wilson a quack and other insults to him, anything to justify their addictions / habits / beliefs that they seem set on. This is not the way, IMHO, to determine what's fact or fable. This is just a group of unruly guys ganging up to sling mud at a new person / idea they cannot understand because they don't have the time to study or the willingness to change from the set ways they're in, so they call him a quack and hope he goes away.

 

[Scoot_4_20]

Originally Posted By: crinkles
as soon as the Dr started talking yin, i switched off!


I know what you mean. The Yin theory seems like something I wouldn't want to bother pursuing. If I avoid yin foods for a year, I wonder what I'd get besides food deprivation. Doesn't seem worth it, and life is too short to eat a very restricted diet.

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: Scoot_4_20
I see what you mean Steve but many of the repliers' best defenses so far has been to call Dr Wilson a quack and other insults to him, anything to justify their addictions / habits / beliefs that they seem set on. This is not the way, IMHO, to determine what's fact or fable. This is just a group of unruly guys ganging up to sling mud at a new person / idea they cannot understand because they don't have the time to study or the willingness to change from the set ways they're in, so they call him a quack and hope he goes away.


Actually, folks were pretty respectable, asking for studies and peer review to back up what he's said.

But that was pooh pooh'ed as just an attempt to be a centerfold in JAMA.

Really? You call that response respectable?

Folks were asking for information to learn, and it's not been provided.

Who doesn't have time? I think you may want to look in the mirror and suggest to the man you see that if he's going to convince folks of a point of view, he has to take the time to adequately address the questions presented.

He will not be very convincing if he responds to questions with condescension.

 

[Scoot_4_20]

I don't pay any mind to "peer reviewed" anything. "Peer reviewed" to me just means being an FDA / AMA conformist, just to get published and accepted by big pharma to make millions of dollars. That's all a big front.

 

[Scoot_4_20]

I won't post any more of his articles here. He's too exotic / extreme for a motor oil forum.

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: Scoot_4_20
I won't post any more of his articles here. He's too exotic / extreme for a motor oil forum.


Your choice. Perhaps you could learn from this example and from the experience with your sister. If you are going to be convincing, you have to be able to respond to legitimate questions AND determine if your audience is even interested in what you are saying.

There is nothing wrong with presenting something controversial or out of the ordinary. Just be prepared to answer questions. If you simply attack those who ask questions, you lose credibility.

The problem is NOT the questions. In most cases here, the problem isn't the audience either. The problem is that what you are presenting is a lone voice. That's not to say that a lone voice is wrong. But a lone voice does have to satisfy the burden of proof to have his/her argument gain traction in the marketplace of ideas.

That's why there is peer review in science and medicine.

Are there those who want to be the "centerfold" as you so condescendingly put it? Sure. But that's a character trait that is not exclusive to any one community. I suspect it's equally represented in many of the professional sources you choose to follow.

So rather than be disrespectful, why not answer the legitimate skepticism with respectful responses. It will go a lot further than the "I know more than you've forgotten..." condescension you presented.

Present what you want. Simply keep in mind that you are speaking to an intelligent, practical minded audiance that wants to see the proof.

Proof, not puffery is what most from this site require to be convinced.

 

[Ray Garlington]

He states:

"This section incorporates our own research findings and that of many others who have worked with many fruitarians and others who eat or have eaten a lot of fruit for a period of some years, in most cases."

So, he is observing people who are eating very high carbohydrate diets. Populations that eat very high carbohydrate diets tend to have an over abundance of the maladies that he lists. In the US, our very high carbohydrate diet results from eating an abundance of "healthy grains" rather than an abundance of fruit, but the body doesn't really care where the sugar came from. The results will be the same.

 

[Quattro Pete]

I said to myself that I was going to leave this thread alone, but I'm too weak to follow through with it...

Originally Posted By: Scoot_4_20
He has clinical experience from treating 1000s of patients over the last 30+ years. While a lot of it may or may not apply to me, it seems to apply to many of his patients.

So how does he go from "many of his patients" to "most people"? I'm missing a link here.

You realize how severely skewed his sample is, right? It's akin to a tire repair shop owner coming to the conclusion that most cars on the road would benefit from a tire plug because most of the ones that came to his shop got fixed by it.

He (and you) make it sound like he wants nothing to do with the "reputable" medical community. It is fairly obvious that it is the medical community that wants nothing to do with him. For his argument to have any validity, he would have to examine equal number of perfectly healthy individuals (as opposed to the sick ones that come to him for help) and scientifically prove what? That taking away their fruit made them even more perfectly healthy??? The more I think about it, the more ridiculous Dr. Wilson appears to me. Sorry.

 

[Scoot_4_20]

I don't care about convincing anyone. I just posted it to see how you'd digest it. I was just standing up for Dr Wilson because people called him a quack, and I thought that was a cop-out.

He's too exotic for this type of forum.

 

[greenaccord02]

Originally Posted By: Scoot_4_20
I don't pay any mind to "peer reviewed" anything. "Peer reviewed" to me just means being an FDA / AMA conformist, just to get published and accepted by big pharma to make millions of dollars. That's all a big front.


If you wonder why nobody takes what you say seriously, it's because of nonsense like this. If anybody else posted it, I'd think I was being trolled.

This is like watching M*A*S*H to learn how to be a doctor.

 

[greenaccord02]

Originally Posted By: Scoot_4_20
He's too exotic for this type of forum.


I guess we're just not on your level around here. We like things like "real" doctors and "peer reviewed" science.

 

[Scoot_4_20]

Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
Originally Posted By: Scoot_4_20
He's too exotic for this type of forum.


I guess we're just not on your level around here. We like things like "real" doctors and "peer reviewed" science.

Maybe I should leave then.

The "real" doctors are the real quacks in my opinion. If I went to another one with my complex and unique health issues, they'd scratch heir head and then commence to write prescriptions at the speed of light [because most of them are pill pushers] and put me on hundreds/thousands of dollars worth of useless "medicines" until my wallet was empty, and then they'd say "gee, we tried". So much for "peer reviewed" studies and real doctors. Tried that 25+ years ago and it didn't work. They do things the hard way, the way that will feed big pharma and make the rich richer and keep them rolling in the dough to eternity.

 

[Scoot_4_20]

Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
Originally Posted By: Scoot_4_20
He's too exotic for this type of forum.


I guess we're just not on your level around here. We like things like "real" doctors and "peer reviewed" science.

You said the article was "absurd". That shows me just how closed minded many of you are here. You're motor oil geniuses, and will attempt to be a genius at anything else you may come across here, whether or not you know anything at all about it. He's not politically correct, so call him a quack. What cop outs.

I don't know why I've worked so hard defending someone I disagree with about many things. It just seems cruel the way many of you jump so fast to conclude about him because he doesn't size up to your little world of mainstream, pill pushing MDs.