I'm not a regular of this list but I'm absolutely SICKENED by some of the stuff 
that's been said here. 

1. The idea that fruit are somehow artificially selected to have more sugars is 
an extremely poor argument and it just doesn't bear out in reality. Many fruits 
such as dates have far less sugar than their wild counterparts, it's because 
they're too sweet. Just because you have mental issues with sugar doesn't 
mean we all automatically go for sugar more. You can still go to places 
untouched by humanity today and find the same or sweeter fruits!!!!! You'd 
have to be extremely naive and just... your head in a very bad way because 
of emotions to think that fruit are ANYTHING like refined sugars in ANY 
respect. 

Many people such as myself find those fruits too sweet. We won't be pushed 
into it, we really don't like the sugar. I have always much prefered white 
grapefruit and I never realised it contained less sugar. I like the juiciest, best-
tasting apples... those are NOT the sweet ones. Sweetness leaves a sickly 
feeling in me. Ironically if there is a nugget of truth in it it'd be as a result of 
fat people such as themselves. 
   
2. You're fat because you eat processed food, not because of fruit. I was 
always about 155lbs before, whenever I ate just fruit (with a little bit of 
eggs/fish), I automatically dropped tons of weight without even wanting to. 
I'm about 144lbs now and I think I will continue losing for quite a while still. I 
have to make myself eat the fruit now. Many of the tiny amounts of calories in 
fruit pass straight through as Richard Wrangham has shown recently.  

3. I accept that maybe some people really, really can't eat 100% fruit and 
become as light as they want on it. Otherwise everyone would be doing it. I 
feel really sorry for you... but the reason that your system is messed up like 
that is from abuses of processed foods previously. 


On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:52:45 -0500, Jim Swayze 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I find it very interesting that about a third of Europeans have this
>disorder. It is darned close to being the norm.
>
>And while you have a point about apples -- though they are far higher
>in sugar and lower in fiber than their wild counterparts -- 2/3rds a
>cup of raisins would put someone who is sensitive into fructose
>overload.
>
>Jim Swayze
>www.fireholecanyon.com
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Jul 1, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Robert Kesterson <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:51:12 -0500, Jim Swayze 
<[log in to unmask]
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a very interesting read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>>> Fructose_malabsorption
>>
>> Indeed.  Thanks for the reference (I'd never heard of that disorder).
>>
>> It also shows that if you had that disorder, you wouldn't want to
>> eat more than about five or six average-sized apples at once to
>> avoid fructose overload.  Personally, one apple at a time, or two if
>> I'm really starved for apples, is plenty.  :-)
>>
>> --
>>  Robert Kesterson
>>  [log in to unmask]