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.