FRUIT: ITS HEALTH BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS

Status
Not open for further replies.
"little world of mainstream, pill pushing MDs."

Yes, the US medical system has problems; however, if you explore how effective his advice would be with respect to the entire US population, it would NOT work. The amount of carbohydrate consumed in the form of grains FAR exceeds that of fresh fruit. Most people on a western diet could eliminate all fruit intake and experience no health benefit. On the other hand, if they eliminated all grain consumption, but increased their intake of fresh fruit, they would experience health benefits. In other words, he is focused on something associated with the problem, but not the actual problem.
 
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.


As long as it fits our within our concept of the universe.
lol.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

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




Exactly. That's what gets me. That is such a sweepingly bold generalization and he provides nothing to back up the claim but innuendo.
 
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02


If you wonder why nobody takes what you say seriously, it's because of nonsense like this.

Please speak for yourself. I don't need you or anyone else to interpret for me how others may or may not be taking me. I have my own opinion, which is often different than yours. You can't speak for the many possible lurkers or for the certain few that spoke to me in a civil tongue.
 
Originally Posted By: 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.


I personally am thankful for those quacks. About 20 years ago, I was cured, not remission, but cured of cancer based on the research of these quacks.

So I think there is quite a bit of merit to the process you attribute to "greed" and "big pharma."

We all have our experiences, mine certainly was positive.
 
I'm glad you had that positive experience!

He probably thinks eating less or no fruit will improve his clients' hair mineral tests, I don't know. I decided this was not a venture I wanted to pursue. I disagree with him on a LOT of things, but I do think there are interesting things on his website articles.
 
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.


That knowledge certainly isn't demonstrated anywhere on that site, that's for sure.

Yes, I'm referring to him as a quack, for the simple reason that he provides absolutely zero evidence for his conclusions, clearly obfuscates the facts and promotes an alarmist agenda.

Since you're really going to make me do this, I'm going to address this point by silly point:

"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."

first off, he's standing the scientific method on its head. If your position is that you simply don't believe in science, then I guess there's really no hope in having a discussion. You'll get no argument from me that modern medicine has many shortcomings when it comes to disease prevention and the role of nutrition. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the difference between "evidence" and "anecdote". His comment above shows he doesn't understand the difference. First off, he's applying his findings from "fruitarians", by definition people who eat all or mostly fruit, to average people. That's ridiculous. Secondly, he ascribes their issues to the eating of fruit, not the exclusion of other foods. That's even more ridiculous. This is 'false-cause fallacy' defined. Then, he goes on to describe an entire host of ailments, from birth defects to being tired (or angry), but provides no link, no studies, simply an "observation regarding people who ate a lot of fruit".

"Fruit is extremely yin"

whatever your position is on chi and food's affect on it, THIS STATEMENT ISN'T EVEN TRUE! He wants to single-handedly re-write centuries of Chinese medicine?? Several fruits are used to tonify yin,apples and bananas (the most common fruits, by far) are among them? His comments make no sense, even is you ascribe to the yin and yang philosophy of diet.

"Fruit upsets the blood sugar level and causes insulin release."

that's patently false, as measured by people who've actually measured the response to fruit. Many fruits are actually relatively low-glycemic. "Taste" is not an indicator. Beef can raise insulin response more than raw sugar. Newsflash: just because something can be easily demonstrated by scientific methods, doesn't mean it's "wrong" or a "conspiracy by the man".

"Fruit is a carbohydrate food, and most people are overeating on carbohydrates already."

no argument there, but removing fruit, which is NOT calorie-dense compared to most other high-carbohydrate foods, high in fiber and nutrients, is not the answer. Start by removing processed sugars, not fruit. No one is getting fat from eating to much fruit, period.

"Fruit dehydrates the body" categorically, demonstrably false. He seems to refer to the osmality of the sugars in fruit, and totally discount the water content, then mentions that 'it has pesticides anyway'? That may be true, but it was nothing to do with hydration.

"Fruit is quite harmful for babies and children, as it enhances the oxidation rate in the short term, but slows it later."

fruits are generally anti-oxidant, and per volume, not that high in sugar. I hate to let simple facts keep getting in the way.

"Modern fruit is often hybridized and genetically modified. Few people realize this unless, perhaps, you have an old crab apple tree where the fruit was small and it was not as sweet as it is today. Most fruit today is grown for mass consumption and is larger, sweeter, less nutritious, lower in mineral content, and for these reasons even more expanded or yin."


Again, much of what he said is demonstrably false.
-there are no genetically-modified fruits legally available for sale in the US
-the hydridization techniques uses for current foods has almost nothing to do with taste, and everything to do with making the food more tolerant for storage and shipping. That's why 'heirloom' varieties are generally less robust, but sweeter and better-tasting. And the methods of creating hybrid crops is pretty identical now as it was since the beginning of recorded time. Of course food is different now than it was centuries ago, but mostly because of blight and transportation issues. The alternative to this can be seen in places where crops are not resistant and can't be easily moved around. The result is high starvation rates. No thanks...

Honestly, I was prepared to let this go, but it's akin to yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, and encouraging anyone to eat LESS whole foods at a time when it's consumption is at an all-time low is simply irresponsible IMHO.
 
Every one is bringing up good points but you, scoot. The general, "he's a quack" statements ended on page 1, yet you continue to rebuttal as if THAT is our only statement for argument. Read JOD's posts and respond to those if you'd like. To continue to tell use we're copping out without saying what the heck you're referring to is silly.

Irrespective of whether you believe in big "pharma," what he's saying holds water like a sieve. Drop the "too exotic" excuse already; what does it have to do with anything? Extremism is extremism, and our questions have nothing to do with some fear of the unknown, untested. The fact is, any one who makes such general statements and alludes to proof, but fails to share any data, let alone case studies or peer reviews (even if by like-minded Dr.'s,) is a quack, plain and simple.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
there are no genetically-modified fruits legally available for sale in the US


You may make good points, but this sounds totally false. I don't know why in the world anyone wold say such a thing. GMO has nearly taken over our food supply. eat what you want to eat, but I avoid GMO if I can.
 
JOD - I don't think I agree with a lot of your reply, but I'm not going to waste any more energy with it. You all won this battle because you can type better than I can and you can seem like you know the answers to a lot of things, but I doubt that you do.

Call him a quack all you want to. I can relate to him a lot more than any of you. I don't care if you can type 100 WPM, you have a lot to learn, IMHO.
 
Quote:
Every one is bringing up good points but you, scoot.


You better read it all again. I happen to hit it off good with several people in this thread, it's just that you're not one of them. Try to see the good parts of what I said and not only the bad.

Quote:
Read JOD's posts and respond to those if you'd like.


Oh yeah, just as if I planned to make a day out of replying to this thread. He has better typing ability than I do. Does that mean he's right, and I'm not?
 
I actually agree with JOD's newest reply about Yin, etc. I was going to edit my post but I waited too long. I already said I disagree with Dr W about a lot of things.
 
Originally Posted By: Scoot_4_20
GMO has nearly taken over our food supply. eat what you want to eat, but I avoid GMO if I can.

While it's true that there is plenty of GMO stuff out there, we are talking about fruit here.
Have you actually done your research on this? According to the latest (2011) brochure from Center for Food Safety (one of the bigger whistle blowers on GMO and proponent of its strict regulation and labeling):

Quote:
Very few fresh fruits and vegetables for sale in the U.S. are genetically modified. Novel products such as seedless watermelons are NOT genetically modified. Small amounts of zucchini, yellow crookneck squash, and sweet corn may be GM. The only commercialized GM fruit is papaya from Hawaii — about half of Hawaii’s papayas are GM.


For those interested in knowing what may or may not be GMO at their local grocery store, here is the whole guide from which this quote came:
http://truefoodnow.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/cfs-shoppers-guide.pdf
 
Yes, but non GMO can be and often is high pesticide, IMHO.

I eat mostly organic produce. Some non organic are OK and low pesticide.

Sorry if I was being hard to get along with.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

Have you actually done your research on this? According to the latest (2011) brochure from Center for Food Safety (one of the bigger whistle blowers on GMO and proponent of its strict regulation and labeling):


That's an interesting site. I visit naturalnews.com sometimes. They seem up on all that stuff. Haven't researched it much lately. I'm having to stop mostly all fruit for now and recover from the vegan diet I was on for 8 months. I'm eating some animal foods again.
 
Originally Posted By: Scoot_4_20
I'm eating some animal foods again.


I recommend lots of beef brisket. I know I feel better after eating a pound or 3.
 
Originally Posted By: Scoot_4_20
Quote:
there are no genetically-modified fruits legally available for sale in the US


You may make good points, but this sounds totally false. I don't know why in the world anyone wold say such a thing. GMO has nearly taken over our food supply. eat what you want to eat, but I avoid GMO if I can.


Almost all soy and most corn in the US are genetically-modified, so your point about the difficulty in avoiding "foods" is true. He was specifically mentioning "fruit", though, and this simply is not true. That will probably change in the next 20 years, since the current banana (the Cavendish) is probably going to be extinct by then. And to be totally honest, I'm not convinced that genetically-modified fruit is the devil many make it out to be. Dan Koeppell's book goes into this in some detail: link. Yes, it's an entire book about bananas...(but really, it's a great book, and I highly recommend it!).

The bottom line is that genetically-modified food is probably going to be an important tool to fight world-wide hunger. "All natural" is good and all, but the blights that caused destruction to certain foods, millions of people, and eventually entire cultures, was "all natural" as well. So, you can't dismiss any of the tools available to fight crop-destroying blights.
 
Originally Posted By: JOD
The bottom line is that genetically-modified food is probably going to be an important tool to fight world-wide hunger.


LOL, that's made my rainy day.

They've certainly demonstrated their lack of desire for that very milestone to date.

We get roundup ready wild radish, requiring manual weeding again;
Killer gene technology that requires a royalty and chemical to grow next year's crops;
suing farmers whose paddocks get contaminated,;
creating a true monoculture (true genome rather than different families), making true devastation a possibility; and
generally very specific water requirements, and oft more than the old style hybrid breed.
 
""Fruit upsets the blood sugar level and causes insulin release."

that's patently false, as measured by people who've actually measured the response to fruit. Many fruits are actually relatively low-glycemic. "Taste" is not an indicator. Beef can raise insulin response more than raw sugar. Newsflash: just because something can be easily demonstrated by scientific methods, doesn't mean it's "wrong" or a "conspiracy by the man"."
==============================
This is so far off the mark that I have to ask which studies show each of these particular things: 1. Fruit doesn't affect blood sugar 2. beef triggers a higher insulin response than sugar.

About the only possibility is you are talking about specific populations of people with impaired metabolism. For a person with a normal metabolism, fruit will raise blood sugar AND sugar will cause blood sugar to rise more than beef resulting in a greater insulin response.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Scoot_4_20
Quote:
there are no genetically-modified fruits legally available for sale in the US


You may make good points, but this sounds totally false. I don't know why in the world anyone wold say such a thing. GMO has nearly taken over our food supply. eat what you want to eat, but I avoid GMO if I can.


Here yopu may find the list of GMO foods sold to the public. The only fruits are papayas and tomatoes as of 2009. There could be more since then.

http://www.disabled-world.com/fitness/gm-foods.php
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top