I've been reading that fructose may accelerate the aging process much more than glucose because fructose is more reactive in glycation reactions.

Do any of you eating high-fruit consider how much fructose you're eating vs other sugars?

Here's a couple studies on the topic:
[jn.nutrition.org]
[cat.inist.fr]

I had posted these earlier and I no longer thing it is a concern. The J Nutrition study used isolated fructose, not fruit. There are anti-glycation substances in the pigmented parts of fruits that will protect you. And with a raw diet you are getting way less exposure to exogenous glycotoxins than what a cooked food diet would give you. You can do a board search of glycotoxins or glycation or fructose to see some of the previous discussions.

From my personal experience, after trying high protein I am pretty sure that high fruit is better for me. For one thing I don't have as much of an odor in my sweat anymore after I exercise.

Thanks Arugula, those are some good points. Also I found some others posts of yours about the anti-glycation properties of flavonoids... very interesting- a good reason to choose organically grown produce which is often higher in flavonoids.

Do you know of any data showing the levels of exogenous glycotoxin formation of various cooked foods, for example boiled rice or root veggies?

I still wonder if those eating high-fruit should choose fruits with lower fructose/glucose ratios.

Yes, I have the full text for "Advanced GLycoxidation products in commonly consumed foods." It isn't free.

Here's an abbreviated version that is free, see table 1:

[newcastleyoga.com.au]

basically fats cooked are worst, cooked proteins intermediate, and reasonably cooked starches, not so bad (of course this excludes potato chips and fries, which are mostly fat). Cooked rice and root veggies are minimally toxic. The reason why I limit them is that they are not so nutrient and phytochemical dense, but probably if you include them lightly steamed sweet potato and possibly beet are the better choices, always go for color if you can. The duration of exposure to heat and cooking method is also important.

Thanks Arugi, thats a good article... I think my parents might even understand it (and hopefully stop grilling and frying things).

Btw, grains may be more phytochemical dense than previously thought, as described here under the heading "Phytonutrients with Health-Promoting Activity Equal to or Even Higher than that of Vegetables and Fruits"
[www.whfoods.com]

The idea of anti-glycation nutrients is cool. Many traditional cooked diets include lots of herbs/spices that prevent lipid oxidation, and probably glycotoxin formation too. For example, olive oil is traditionally infused with a sprig of rosemary, and Indians use a lot of turmeric. Also, bee pollen is very rich in rutin, and other flavonoids so may be of benefit.

<"Phytonutrients with Health-Promoting Activity Equal to or Even Higher than that of Vegetables and Fruits" >

This is not true on kcal basis. Providing a measure on a gram basis can be deceptive, because we get our energy in kcals not grams.

Maybe fruits are more phytochemical dense on a calorie basis. But combining grains with super phytochemical-dense berries/bee pollen might even the score.

Also grains, which digest more slowly will release phytochemicals more evenly throughout the day, which may be better than random blasts of phytochemicals from eating, say mono fruit meals.

From a personal standpoint, I just don't feel comfortable eating a bunch of sweet fruit. The sweetness doesn't taste/feel right to me. Some berries and figs are ok, but super sweet fruits like mangoes, apples, pineapples and pears gross me out after the first 100 calories or so. Plus they wreaked havoc on my teeth when I tried eating high fruit (with plenty of greens).

Jono,

You also have to take into account the anti-nutrients in your food choices. Grains are acidifying because of their phytic acids. Also they contain opioids, which make them addictive.

Also, our bodies are not adapted to eat grains in their natural state, which is straight off the plant. To eat them, basically we need to process them (cooking being the most prevalent way).

But if grains are feeling good to you, and it sounds like they are, then enjoy them (unless they quit feeling food, at which point you can reevaluate them).

Bryan,

>>You also have to take into account the anti-nutrients in your food choices.

One man's anti-nutrient is another man's nutrient. Phytic acid has many positive nutritional properties in addition to it's mineral binding properties. Fruits also contain anti-nutrients as do all foods. Also, traditional preparation techniques remove much of the phytic acid.

>>Also, our bodies are not adapted to eat grains in their natural state, which is straight off the plant.

I think some people are adapted to eating cooked starches like grains and root vegetables. My ancestors have been doing so for many generations.

>>But if grains are feeling good to you, and it sounds like they are, then enjoy them (unless they quit feeling food, at which point you can reevaluate them).

I'm not currently eating much grains or anything cooked but I like to explore all of my dietary options.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2007 04:34PM by jono.

jono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also grains, which digest more slowly will
> release phytochemicals more evenly throughout the
> day, which may be better than random blasts of
> phytochemicals from eating, say mono fruit meals.
>
> From a personal standpoint, I just don't feel
> comfortable eating a bunch of sweet fruit. The
> sweetness doesn't taste/feel right to me. Some
> berries and figs are ok, but super sweet fruits
> like mangoes, apples, pineapples and pears gross
> me out after the first 100 calories or so. Plus
> they wreaked havoc on my teeth when I tried eating
> high fruit (with plenty of greens).


Totally!! I'm the same way. My teeth looked yellow this summer when I was eating alot of sweet fruit.

Bryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, our bodies are not adapted to eat grains in
> their natural state, which is straight off the
> plant. To eat them, basically we need to process
> them (cooking being the most prevalent way).
>

Yes they are, Bryan, and I know you've read the answer before so I don't know why you keep saying this. We eat grains RAW and SPROUTED. So please stop saying that grains have to be cooked. Thank you.

jono Wrote:

> One man's anti-nutrient is another man's nutrient.
> Phytic acid has many positive nutritional
> properties in addition to it's mineral binding
> properties.

the positive properties cited that i saw seem to be distorted by the researchers misinterpretation of the causes of cancer.

sunshine,

If you look at my post, I said they needed to be processed. In your case, you soak them and sprout them, which to me is processing. By eating food in its natural state, can you go to a grass, pull out the grains and eat them? I can do that with a tomato or an apple, eat them right off the plant.

Bryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sunshine,
>
> If you look at my post, I said they needed to be
> processed. In your case, you soak them and sprout
> them, which to me is processing. By eating food in
> its natural state, can you go to a grass, pull out
> the grains and eat them? I can do that with a
> tomato or an apple, eat them right off the plant.


Say what??? That is not processing. That's crazy talk. In nature the sun shines on a grain in some water or whatever and the thing sprouts naturally. Sorry, but that is not even close to processing. Processing means you take something from its natural state and make it something that wouldn't occur in nature. Sprouts are everywhere in nature.

So yes, we can bend down, pick up a handful of sprouts from the ground, and eat them just like that.

sunshine,

If someone handed me a single watermelon seed and said to me, here's your dinner, you can eat with no processing whatsoever, but I had to plant the seed, water it, and wait for the watermelon to sprout from the seed, I'd say they were crazy to say that there was no processing involved to eat my meal.

Grains as you buy them in the store are not ready to eat. They need to be processed, whether the process requires a stove and water, or requires a sprouting jar and water and a week of waiting. To me, no processing means I can eat it in its original state with doing no work.

You're talking about how things like sprouting can be accomplished in a modern setting, like an office. I'm talking about what happens in nature and how nature intended. Nature didn't build offices, humans did. Nature did, however, give us sprouted grains growing out of the ground. The fact that we can replicate nature indoors is irrelevant.

Again, we cannot eat grains as you buy them in the store without some sort of processing. Have you ever bought grains from the store and just ate them? I've done with with about every kind of fruit and salad vegetable I know of.

Nature didn't grow stores, stores are man-made. Nature does, however, grow sprouted grains.

sunshine,

We seem to be in agreement here. Sprouts in nature may be edible as they are, but grains on the grass are not edible until they turn to sprouts, at which point they are no longer grains. So I agree that you can eat sprouts in nature as you find them. And you seem to agree with me that grains cannot be eaten as is, unless they somehow (via nature or a sprouting jar) turn into sprouts.