I'm Confused.
I see glowing radiant people eating the 80/10/10 diet and I've been working my way over to that regime, but lately I've been seeing lots of research articles popping up on the dangers of excess fructose- processed or from fruit.
I'm feeling really confused about all of this.
Here's the latest Mercola article on the subject...
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... px?np=true

I think the majority of the studies were done on mice, who I feel have different metabolisms with slightly different requirements... but still, the basic information about fructose metabolism in humans is correct.
Why is this coming out as being extremely detrimental, when others seem to be obviously thriving on a high fructose diet?
Is it because of the high nutritional and anti-oxidant load that counteracts any liver damage??

I'd love to hear other's thoughts on this.

I've also been reading about a few individuals that have been doing a strict 80/10/10 regime and have been gaining weight... which would make sense according to fructose metabolism = fat storage as shown in the research.

It's interesting. It's confusing.

This "research" is biased and jumps to random conclusions not considering all factors. I only read the part about fructose. There is no mention of 1-phosphofructokinase and no mention of ATP which is produced from sugars. Indeed, if you pour 1kg of fructose into a stomach, the result won't be very healthy. But fruitarianism is not about eating isolated fructose - it is about eating whole fruits. In The 80/10/10 diet, Dr. Graham made a distinction between glycemic index and glycemic load - the amount of sugar entering the bloodstream at a time. Raw fresh fruits do not have so much concentrated sugar in them. Their sugar is extracted slowly. Even if you eat a kilogram or two of fruit, their fructose content will not be poured at once as is with the other carbohydrates. And it won't be enough in quantity to exhaust anything. I think the research is more focused on processed food. And I don't know how this guy jumped from pyruvate to lipogenesis, omitting the whole Krebs cycle.
The guy does have a point. He is against artificial sweeteners which are indeed harmful. He just omits a lot of factors which are present when eating raw and which are not present when eating processed food.
But thank you for the topic, reminds me to dig up some stuff

The same guy that appears on the video has a much longer and in depth presentation on the very same topic where he says that fruit is ok because fiber is the "antidote" to fructose.
His explanation is not extremely convincing to me but at least he recognizes that fructose in fruit is not necessarily bad.

here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&ob=av3e

Jump straight to 1:12:52 to skip directly to the part on fiber and fruits.
He even follow on by saying that eating raw is good for you, making reference to the Paleo diet in this case. I doesn't mention a diet of mostly fruits though and I would be curious to see what he has to say to that.

One thing is obvious to me: High fructose consumption as part of the 80/10/10 diet does not lead to obesity. I know enough people eating this way to be fairly confident about that one!!
So something about his story is missing..

thanks for your feedback!

A: If the supposed negative effects of fructose are negated by fiber, then it really doesn't matter whether you eat one apple or thirty. The ratio of fiber to fructose remains the same.
B: The guy doing the research openly says that fruit is not a problem.
C: Before you start following what Mercola suggests, best to look into his entire agenda.
D: Scientists proved that bumblebees can't fly. Experience is key. We see people thriving on 811. That tells us much more than anything some researcher may formulate based on research on mice.

May logical heads prevail.

Hi,

I'm a newbie to this forum but was pleased to see and read the threads regarding concerns about Fructose.

I to am a subscriber to Dr. Mercola's newsletter and was exposed to an article that I must admit is making me seek out support. See: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/02/11/all-fruit-diet.aspx?e_cid=20130211_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130211

I've also been listening to an audio version of "Wheat Belly" by William Davis which seems to follow Mercola in terms of the concerns about insulin resistance etc....i.e. although I haven't gotten to the part about what he recommends for diet but the content so far smells like it's going the way of Mercola advocating high fat high protein low carb etc.

So I can understand if someone on 811 such as myself might feel the need to get reminded of why this approach is safe and healthy. I was thinking about getting something that measures blood glucose levels to prove to myself that I'm not generating high glucose levels after eating an all fruit breakfast or lunch (i.e. or fruit mixed with greens etc. e.g. such as what is sited when consuming grains etc.). Although I have a relatively low BMI I do seem to have developed a small paunch which kind of makes me wonder a little bit.

I have to stress that I feel great following 811 (I have been following it for about 4 years) but in light of recent exposures to Mercola and Davis some more scientific or perhaps even some longer term (e.g. 20 year study) antecodal evidence confirming 811 would be nice.

I have a question about this. I am one of those people that have gained a lot of weight from 80/10/10 but I think a lot of this has to do with my date consumption (it's heavy). Do dates have the sufficient fiber content to balance out the fructose? I'm trying to cut them out but honestly I feel a little addicted! What are your thoughts?