Nutrition Facts put out a video pulling together the research on the beneficial affect of fruit intake with diabetic issues. It starts with how bluberries actually blunt the glycemic impact, despite their sugar content.
youtube.com/watch?v=bHnsawf...
(remember this is not someone's opinion, rather what the research shows.)
Hi Andy,
I enjoyed watching this video, and I am enjoying eating fruit regularly - and it's great to see the healthy benefits of fruit within the studies reported.
Hope you're having a lovely weekend.
Zest 
Thanks! I knew that fruit was healthy, but I had no idea that I could enjoy so much of it without worry. Excuse me while I go eat another banana...
I can't watch the video properly here because I have no sound on this machine, but this isn't really news. There's plenty of research showing that fructose from (say) an orange doesn't seem to have the same health effects as a glass of juice from six oranges. It's not a paradox: the explanation boils down to physical chemistry (reactant surface area) and quantity (one orange as opposed to six).
On the other hand, I wouldn't trust any spin that whatshisface puts onto original research: I've read his book, and he has an unpleasant habit of either misrepresenting studies as showing something they actually don't, or he just doesn't understand them. The T2D study with fruit, for example, is worthless: any effects due to 125g of fruit vs. 51g of fruit will quite obviously disappear into the noise - the noise being considerable, if you look at the graphs (since HbA1c is almost unchanged over the study period for all participants, their baseline diet is presumably the standard high-carb diet given to diabetics). Unfortunately, I can't find the full paper, but the result would have been more clear-cut with a control group on a low-carb protocol, and another group substituting some large-ish fraction of fat calories (say, 20%) with fruit. A basic principle of any measurement is minimize the noise rather than attempt to filter it out, if you have the option.
The most interesting part of that study, to me, is the variation in response: there's about 5-10% of the study population who respond well to the treatment protocol (whatever it is) and the other 90-95% don't respond at all.
The blueberry study (it's on NCBI) measures a bunch of obscure surrogate markers with no known practical significance; it doesn't tell us anything about the long-term health benefits (or otherwise) of eating blueberries.
I'll have a look at the other ones later. Maybe it gets better.
The question remains: why would anybody want to eat a "high-carbohydrate low-fat breakfast", which sounds to me like a description of wallpaper paste or shredded cardboard. Personally, I'd rather eat something that tastes nice.
Good critique - my first thought in the first few moments was blueberries with cornflakes for breakfast - really? Somehow I dont think I will be following this guy’s advise. It Always pays to read the original papers and look at the methodology.
CDreamer, there is no way Dr Greger would want anyone to eat blueberries with cornflakes as a recommendation from him. He was reporting on the research. Take issue with the research if you want to...
I tend to distrust research - period - unless I understand the protocols and the conclusions. I also find it difficult to trust doctors who think simply because they are medically trained they deserve respect. Respect is earned. There have been far too many really poor research protocols endorsed by doctors on so called nutrition which bear absolutely no reality to real life scenarios and it’s complexities so I stand by my original comments. And you grab your audience within the first few moments of any video so as soon as cornflakes was mentioned = switch off.
So I remain healthily sceptical, although I do eat blueberries most days and do agree that fructose taken in whole fruit which provides fibre is the answer - because fibre feeds healthy gut flora - which consume the sugar so you don’t absorp it - hence why fermented food and looking after gut health is so important.
I respect TheAwfulToad for his thoroughness in delving deeper as to conclusions - which judging from what was quoted in the video seemed to me pure and simple marketing.
I would recommend drmalcolmkendrick.org/books...
Which explains how to read research and also how statistics are warped to grab headlines - you need to read beyond the top line.
Respect is earned. NutritionFacts is provided as a completely free service. All proceeds from books like "how not to die" go to charity. They do not go into someone's back pocket.
You may prefer Dr Kendrick and TAD's advice. That's your choice. I prefer to go into the research papers and understand things from different perspectives. I work hard to understand what the research is actually saying, and what its limitations are.
FYi This morning, for example, I listened to some podcasts by carnivores. Yesterday I listened to a couple on paleo. I try not to close my eyes but to look at other perspectives as openly as I can.
I object to is people supporting arguments with research funded by dairy/meat industry without disclosure. If someone is profiting from selling a particular approach then that needs questionning. Everyone has a right to make a living, but saying meat is somehow healthy and then selling protein or vitamin supplements needs to be justified.
The body is an amazing thing. We have a lot to learn. As more and more people take up low-carb and high-carb research will show more clearly if there is a winner on one side or the other.
Dr Greger always says don't take his word for it, check the research and come to your own conclusions. That's why he provides full the links to the research, so no need for you to argue that you cannot find the research. Just visit nutritionfacts.org/video/fl... and click on the sources tab. Also if you are hard of hearing or otherwise cannot hear or wath the video a full transcript is available from the same page.
TAD, can you do me a favour, I look forward to read your responses but when you reduce your quality by using personal attacks such as "whatshisface" that is a turn off for me, and I am sure for others as well. Dr Greger is a medical professional and I think deserves some measure of respect even if you don't agree with his perspectives.
I recognised the face, but I just couldn't remember his name off the top of my head. It wasn't intended as a slur. Thanks for the link - I'll have a proper look at the references.
IMO though, academic qualifications do not buy you unconditional respect; people with lots of letters after their names are just as prone to human failings as anyone else. I lay into Dr Greger because he's dishonest. That's not an ad hominem attack, it's an objective assessment of his writing. He knows full well that most people aren't going to look up his references. Of those who do look things up, 95% of them won't understand a single word. Of course, it's possible that he's merely incompetent, but I guess that's not a favourable alternative.
I actually enjoy reading contrary viewpoints (I just ploughed through a book by Peter Hitchens, who I think is a misguided wingnut) and I'm quite happy to listen to people like Dr Greger ... up to a point. But if they can't make their case without torturing the facts, I'll usually switch off. By way of contrast, I think climate change is a big problem, but I very much enjoyed Bjorn Lomborg's "sceptical" book on the subject - because he has some watertight arguments for his views.
I probably didn't make my basic point very well, which is this: "how much fruit is too much?" is probably not a question that science can or should address. People never struggled with this question before. Why are we now turning to men in white coats to help us answer it? Why are we so afraid of food? Why do we have to justify eating blueberries with anything other than "I like blueberries"? Grandma could have told you how many blueberries is too many: it's when there aren't enough left for everyone else, or you feel sick.
EDIT: just going through the links now.
- The Christensen paper, as I suspected, has a problem with the baseline diet, which isn't even described properly: subjects were just told to "restrict energy consumption" (which is in any case futile for diabetics). Assuming the diet is "balanced" it will contain too many carbs to show differences due to (small) changes in fruit intake. The intervention ["1) Eat at least two pieces of fruit each day (high-fruit) or 2) eat no more than two pieces of fruit each day (low-fruit)"] is laughable - most likely, a whole bunch of people, in both groups, would have eaten precisely two pieces of fruit. They also have a problem with measurement: unless I've missed something, they literally just took two blood samples, one at the start and one at the end. I hope I don't have to explain why that's daft.
- Lustig: I like Lustig because he knows his biochemistry, but he's dead wrong about the Japanese diet being high in carbs and low in fat. Japanese restaurants are my go-to default when I want a nice low-carb meal. Yes, Japanese people eat rice. A little, in a palm-sized bowl. If they're in a hurry they'll have only rice with some pickles or suchlike. Mostly, though, rice accounts for perhaps one-sixth of the meal. The rest is vegetables with a little meat and/or egg. They eat plenty of fat, in particular from pork and oily fish.
- The quoted Meyer paper is a discussion of results only. I can't find the actual experiment (it's from 1971) so impossible to comment, other than to note that the experiment was run for a full 6 months (a good thing), and for that reason alone should be taken more seriously than most.
- The full text of the Jenkins paper is not available. However, since it was only of 2 weeks' duration, it's unlikely to be of any practical importance. "We conclude that very high-vegetable fiber intakes reduce risk factors for cardiovascular disease and possibly colon cancer." ... really. Results do not support your hypothesis, Jenkins. In fact, Jenkins, you didn't even have a hypothesis in the first place, so you're guilty of drawing the bullseye around the bullethole. Go and sit in the corner and think about what you did.
Vitamins. Tablets or fruits & vegetablets?
Cruelty to fruit and vegetables?
