Re Nuts

I eat nuts all the time but most of them are pre-soaked (in lightly
salted water) and then dried - my understanding is that soaking
initiates the sprouting process and that this neutralizes the most
harmful aspects of nuts - they taste much better after being soaked to
me but your milage may vary.

Cheers

Neil

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> ----- "Geoffrey Purcell" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Also, the available studies generally indicate that natural fructose in fruits is not only not harmful, because its consumption is below the dosage point where harm occurs, but also the fructose in fruit is accompanied by antoxidants and other substances unlike corn-syrup
>>
>> which consists of useless calories not absorbed properly by the body:-
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2525467/
>
> Sigh. I am making some fairly specific points about fructose, and you are responding with generalities. Fructose, whether from fruits or HFCS, has adverse effects on the body. These include the promotion of NAFLD, insulin resistance, and leptin dysfunction. You claimed that the science behind this is meaningless, because whole fruits contain bacteria, enzymes, etc. Asked to provide support for your claim that the presence of bacteria, enzymes, and "etc" keep fructose from promoting NAFLD, insulin resistance, and leptin dysfunction, you instead argue for the benefits of whole foods. That point is not in dispute. You claim that the fructose in fruits is "below the dosage point where harm occurs," but of course that all depends on how much fruit one consumes, doesn't it? There are people who eat grapes by the pound, and the kind of grapes you can buy in a supermarket are very sweet indeed. So it's far from clear that any pattern of fruit consumption is below the dosage point where harm occurs--and indeed you've given no indication that you know what that dosage point is. I know for a fact that I don't know what it is. Do those antioxicants and other substances alter the effects of fructose on the liver? You've still given us no reason to think so, and no reason to believe that the science is meaningless.
>
> In fact, the very article that you cited has this to say as well: "Fructose consumption, either from beverages or food, may have an additional detrimental effect. In a study from Switzerland, dietary fructose was found to predict an increased level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in children. [6] Fructose, unlike other sugars, increases serum uric acid levels. Nakagawa and colleagues [7] proposed that this happens when fructose is metabolized in the liver, its major organ for metabolism. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is used by the enzyme phosphofructokinase to phosphorylate fructose to fructose-1-phosphate. The adenosine-5′-diphosphate that is thus formed can be further broken down to adenosine-5′-monophosphate, then to inosine 5′-phosphate, and finally to uric acid. Thus, the metabolism of fructose in the liver leads to the production of uric acid. These authors proposed that the high levels of uric acid could set the stage for advancing cardiovascular disease by reducing the availability of nitric oxide, which is crucial for maintaining normal blood pressure and for maintaining normal function of blood vessel walls (endothelium). [7] If this hypothesis is borne out, it will provide another reason that nature preferred glucose over fructose as a substrate for metabolism during the evolutionary process." So even here it's not all praise for fructose.
>
>> The real clincher , though, is that the majority of studies show distinct benefits for diets high in vegetables, fruit and nuts, which of course, have some levels of unrefined fructose in them :-
>>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10517425
>
> Actually, that clinches nothing. That citrus fruits, in particular, have a protective effect against ischemic stroke really says absolutely nothing about the effect of fructose on the liver. Indeed, the fact that citrus fruits, in particular, but not, say, apples, seem to have this protective effect, suggests that something else in the citrus is helping. Apples are quite high in fructose; higher than citrus. I am not arguing that fruit, in any amount, is bad for you. I am arguing that even in paleo foods, there are elements that can be harmful. Remember william's claim "If it's harmful it's not paleo"? That's the comment that started this. Fructose is harmful, even if it also has beneficial properties. Like many other substances, ordinary consumption levels may not reach the threshold of noticeable harm. But we have to be careful, because not everyone comes to the table with the same issues. For people who already have NAFLD, for example, (probably more than 50% of the adult US population) any amount of fructose at all may be too much. I don't know if that's so, but it would certainly be worth finding out before concluding that consumption of whole fruits is harmless.
>
>> ,nothing like the high levels of refined fructose found in corn-syrup, of course, thus demonstrating that a raw, omnivorous palaeo diet is perfectly healthy.
>
> Since none of the studies you cited involve raw, omnivorous, paleo diets, nor do they include any measures of "perfect health", you'll have to concede that they *demonstrate* nothing of the sort. Until we know what the actual fructose harm threshold is, it's premature to conclude that any implementation of raw paleo, however fruit-heavy, is perfectly healthy.
>
>> Re nuts:- Actually, in rawpalaeo circles, nuts are mostly frowned upon because of the high antinutrient levels in them - people like me get digestive issues from them if eaten in large amounts(which makes me doubt they were eaten in any real quantity before the advent of cooking.
>
> That's fine. Nuts would be the main source of omega fat imbalance, in a paleo context. If they're not paleo, then clearly it's not an issue.
>
> Todd Moody
>



-- 
Neil C Timms