Nutritional myths masquerading as fact.

malnurtured

joeprivate wrote: »

I think it may be a mistake to ignore old studies as big business has learned from its mistakes in the past and is now designing the latest studies to give the results they want.I remember reading about a study the beef industry designed a to show that a diet containing beef was able to lower cholesterol they did this by cutting out enough poultry, pork, fish, and cheese to halve one’s total saturated fat intake.
Many of the older studies were less influenced by big business so dont be so quick to ignore them.
Otherwise I agree with most of what you are saying.

Well, I don't see why big business would have less of an effect on older studies in all honesty. Businesses are always looking for scientific validation of their products etc., whether justified or not.

Why do you think older studies are less susceptible to corporate interference (bearing in mind that the studies I cited don't count - they weren't funded by any big company and they declared no conflict of interest)?

joeprivate

katemarch wrote: »

What makes the Blue Zone thinking even more radical is the persistent assertion that it is NOT only all about what you put in your mouth.
Yes, food is important, and it is one of the easiest things to control: you have choices, you feel strong!

But over and over, they found that if you are going to live to be 100 in good shape, you will also have friends: a sense of purpose: a spiritual practice: a supportive family: connections with the natural world: plenty of outdoor exercise: and -yes - a natural mainly-plants diet.

So that's another nutritional myth to be wary of: that food alone will ensure good health. It won't: the authors of the Okinawa study found that loneliness is a bigger predictor of death than smoking. Think about that!

]

Lots of people in Ireland have "friends: a sense of purpose: a spiritual practice: a supportive family: connections with the natural world: plenty of outdoor exercise: " yet they have much more heart attacks,strokes and cancer than people in the Blue Zones so for the moment I am going to try and eat like people in the Blue Zones to reduce my risk of our top killers in Ireland.
And as for the Okinawa study that found loneliness is a bigger predictor of death than smoking this is not a surprise to me Japanese smokers also have a much less risk of cancer death than western smokers ,its the FOOD ,they eat much more veg which I believe helps the body cure it self of cancer while they eat (or used to) much less dairy and meat which promotes cancer.So even people who smoke which we know causes cancer can in many cases heal them selves by eating a healthy diet,So dont be surprised that people who smoke and eat very little meat get less cancer than people who smoke and eat lots of meat.

Zillah

joeprivate wrote: »

So even people who smoke which we know causes cancer can in many cases heal them selves by eating a healthy diet.

This is not how things work in our universe. Are you from a different one?

Day Lewin

Ah - all good points, of course.

However, MY point was simply that there's more to good health than merely food. I'm not saying it isn't important!

But, for longevity, these other things are important too.

Darkest Horse

joeprivate wrote: »

Lots of people in Ireland have "friends: a sense of purpose: a spiritual practice: a supportive family: connections with the natural world: plenty of outdoor exercise: " yet they have much more heart attacks,strokes and cancer than people in the Blue Zones so for the moment I am going to try and eat like people in the Blue Zones to reduce my risk of our top killers in Ireland.
And as for the Okinawa study that found loneliness is a bigger predictor of death than smoking this is not a surprise to me Japanese smokers also have a much less risk of cancer death than western smokers ,its the FOOD ,they eat much more veg which I believe helps the body cure it self of cancer while they eat (or used to) much less dairy and meat which promotes cancer.So even people who smoke which we know causes cancer can in many cases heal them selves by eating a healthy diet,So dont be surprised that people who smoke and eat very little meat get less cancer than people who smoke and eat lots of meat.

Joe, through your own intuition and also by default, I'm sure a lot of what you are saying could be correct. It does sound to me though that this is just your own personal take on things with not a whole lot to back it up?

BlibBlab

feelgoodinc27 wrote: »

Whats the issue there? Is it cows that are fed a predominantly meal based diet or grass supplemented with meal?

Meat from grass fed vs meal fed has shown to be different

jive

I read somewhere that glasses cause cancer.

_Tombstone_

jive wrote: »

I read somewhere that glasses cause cancer.

Irish Water gives you cancer.

Good chunk of Cancers are environmental. 1 in 4.

I mentioned to some gobsh1te on here one time to be careful buying face paints from china and got told to go and stay in my bubble. That was an easy one to avoid but People are just to stupid and dopey nowadays.

The Scary Truth About Your Kid's Face Paint

Omega28

Any opinions on Kinetica Whey protein?

joeprivate

Omega28 wrote: »

Any opinions on Kinetica Whey protein?

I was doing some research on protein recently and found a few articles on the topic
here is some of what I found interesting .

Nutrition is an emotional subject and nothing arouses people’s passions more than the subject of protein in their diet. Widely divergent opinions on whether more protein or less is best, and on the merits of animal vs. vegetable sources, have been debated for more than 150 years. And for all that time solid scientific research has clearly supported the wisdom of a diet low in protein

Why do you need the extra protein?

What are Your Construction (Protein) Needs?

Protein from your diet is required to build new cells, synthesize hormones, and repair damaged and worn out tissues. So how much do you need?

The protein lost from the body each day from shedding skin, sloughing intestine, and other miscellaneous losses is about 3 grams per day (0.05 grams/Kg).3 Add to this loss other physiological requirements, such as growth and repairs. The final tally, based on solid scientific research, is: your total daily need for protein is about 20 to 30 grams.4,5 Plant proteins easily meet these needs.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that men and women obtain 5% of their calories as protein. This would mean 38 grams of protein for a man burning 3000 calories a day and 29 grams for a woman using 2300 calories a day. This quantity of protein is impossible to avoid when daily calorie needs are met by unrefined starches and vegetables. For example, rice alone would provide 71 grams of highly useable protein and white potatoes would provide 64 grams of protein.

Our greatest time of growth—thus, the time of our greatest need for protein—is during our first 2 years of life— At this vigorous developmental stage our ideal food is human milk, which is 5% protein. Compare this need to food choices that should be made as adults—when we are not growing. Rice is 8% protein, corn 11%, oatmeal 15%, and beans 27%.8
Your greatest need for protein is when you grow the most. The greatest time of growth in a human being’s life is as an infant. We double in size during the first 6 months. The ideal food for a baby is mother’s milk. Therefore, breast milk is the “gold standard” for nutrition – during your time of greatest need for all nutrients, including protein. Five to 6.3 percent of the calories in human breast milk are from protein. This is the maximum concentration of protein we will ever need in our food supply. Knowing this value tells us that at no other time in our life will we ever require more protein. Consider the protein content of the foods we consume after weaning – these are even higher in protein – rice is 9%, potatoes are 8%, corn is 11% and oatmeal is 15% protein.Thus protein deficiency is impossible when calorie needs are met by eating unprocessed starches and vegetables.

Processing all that excess dietary protein – as much as 300 grams a day –causes wear and tear on the kidneys;

www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/031200puprotein.htm

www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/apr/protein.htm

Darkest Horse

joeprivate wrote: »

I was doing some research on protein recently and found a few articles on the topic
here is some of what I found interesting .

Nutrition is an emotional subject and nothing arouses people’s passions more than the subject of protein in their diet. Widely divergent opinions on whether more protein or less is best, and on the merits of animal vs. vegetable sources, have been debated for more than 150 years. And for all that time solid scientific research has clearly supported the wisdom of a diet low in protein

Why do you need the extra protein?

What are Your Construction (Protein) Needs?

Protein from your diet is required to build new cells, synthesize hormones, and repair damaged and worn out tissues. So how much do you need?

The protein lost from the body each day from shedding skin, sloughing intestine, and other miscellaneous losses is about 3 grams per day (0.05 grams/Kg).3 Add to this loss other physiological requirements, such as growth and repairs. The final tally, based on solid scientific research, is: your total daily need for protein is about 20 to 30 grams.4,5 Plant proteins easily meet these needs.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that men and women obtain 5% of their calories as protein. This would mean 38 grams of protein for a man burning 3000 calories a day and 29 grams for a woman using 2300 calories a day. This quantity of protein is impossible to avoid when daily calorie needs are met by unrefined starches and vegetables. For example, rice alone would provide 71 grams of highly useable protein and white potatoes would provide 64 grams of protein.

Our greatest time of growth—thus, the time of our greatest need for protein—is during our first 2 years of life— At this vigorous developmental stage our ideal food is human milk, which is 5% protein. Compare this need to food choices that should be made as adults—when we are not growing. Rice is 8% protein, corn 11%, oatmeal 15%, and beans 27%.8
Your greatest need for protein is when you grow the most. The greatest time of growth in a human being’s life is as an infant. We double in size during the first 6 months. The ideal food for a baby is mother’s milk. Therefore, breast milk is the “gold standard” for nutrition – during your time of greatest need for all nutrients, including protein. Five to 6.3 percent of the calories in human breast milk are from protein. This is the maximum concentration of protein we will ever need in our food supply. Knowing this value tells us that at no other time in our life will we ever require more protein. Consider the protein content of the foods we consume after weaning – these are even higher in protein – rice is 9%, potatoes are 8%, corn is 11% and oatmeal is 15% protein.Thus protein deficiency is impossible when calorie needs are met by eating unprocessed starches and vegetables.

Processing all that excess dietary protein – as much as 300 grams a day –causes wear and tear on the kidneys;

www .nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/031200puprotein.htm

www .drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/apr/protein.htm

I don't know about most of what you said so I can't really question it. I suspect the links you provided aren't particularly reliable but because I can't click on them, I'll reserve judgement. Most days I clear 250g of protein. Kidneys are fine at last time of checking. Why do I do this? Because if I ate the same amount of carbs I'd be ravenous all day and would become obese. There's more rationale to higher protein intake than just the repair of tissues etc. which is all you've really touched upon. Would you suppose I have favourable fasting blood sugar and cholesterol because I eat a greater amount of protein? In my opinion, yes.

Edit: misspelling

joeprivate

Darkest Horse wrote: »

I don't know about most of what you said so I can't really question it. I suspect the links you provided aren't particularly reliable but because I can't click on them,

I was unable to post links as I had less than 25 posts now fixed as I now have 25 posts links edited and extra space removed.

Darkest Horse wrote: »

Most days I clear 250g of protein "

The World Health Organization knows the truth. Since 1974 it has recommended that adults consume a diet with 5% of the calories from protein – this would mean 38 grams of protein for a man burning 3000 calories a day and 29 grams for a woman using 2300 calories a day. These minimum requirements provide for a large margin of safety that easily covers people who theoretically could have greater protein needs – such as accident victims or people with infections.Its a good idea to beware of people telling you that you need much more protein especially if the same people have a vested interested in you consuming it.

Darkest Horse wrote: »

Kidneys are fine at last time of checking.ing it."

Lots of people pass annual medical checks every year yet are suddenly struck down with illness that have been slowly getting worse over a number of years until the body finally is not able to cope. Don't rely to much on doctors, its a business and the business model makes the most money if you are sick .If your dead they make no more money and if they cure you they make no more money so they get rewarded most if your are sick and on long term meds.

Darkest Horse wrote: »

Why do I do this? Because if I ate the same amount of carbs I'd be ravenous all day and would become obese.

Cultures who traditionally eat most of their calories from carbs such as much of asia who used to eat more than 80% of calories from rice were invariably trim people even when they had sedentary lifestyle ,( teachers ,doctors etc) So eating unprocessed carbs and a small amount of meat or fish should not make you obese.

Darkest Horse wrote: »

There's more rationale to higher protein intake than just the repair of tissues etc. which is all you've really touched upon. Would you suppose I have favourable fasting blood sugar and cholesterol because I eat a greater amount of protein? In my opinion, yes.

Its normal for people who have cholesterol readings in the normal range to suffer with heart disease, however people at the bottom end of normal or below the normal range have much less heart disease.
People who eat approx 90% of there calories from unprocessed plant based food and 10% from higher protein foods such as meat and fish tend to have a much better outcome health wise that people who consume a diet high in protein.

Darkest Horse

I don't think you are incorrect or correct, I just don't know but there are things in there about medical treatment that are just plain ridiculous. Public health services are not a business model. Private services might well be but it's ridiculous to imply that profits are made on the back of a deliberate sustenance of illnesses. Profits are not made by keeping people sick because if, as a doctor, you operated like that you wouldn't actually have any patients because you would be known as someone who doesn't cure people. On the other hand, if you are a good doctor who cures people you will have a steady stream of "business". You strike me as another one of those conspiracy theorists.

joeprivate

Darkest Horse wrote: »

I don't think you are incorrect or correct, I just don't know but there are things in there about medical treatment that are just plain ridiculous. Public health services are not a business model. Private services might well be but it's ridiculous to imply that profits are made on the back of a deliberate sustenance of illnesses. Profits are not made by keeping people sick because if, as a doctor, you operated like that you wouldn't actually have any patients because you would be known as someone who doesn't cure people. On the other hand, if you are a good doctor who cures people you will have a steady stream of "business". You strike me as another one of those conspiracy theorists.

This is not a conspiracy theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements

The following is a list of the 20 largest settlements reached between the United States Department of Justice and pharmaceutical companies from 1991 to 2012, ordered by the size of the total settlement. The settlement amount includes both the civil (False Claims Act) settlement and criminal fine. Glaxo's $3 billion settlement included the largest civil, False Claims Act settlement on record,[1] and Pfizer’s $2.3 billion settlement including a record-breaking $1.3 billion criminal fine.[2] Legal claims against the pharmaceutical industry have varied widely over the past two decades, including Medicare and Medicaid fraud, off-label promotion, and inadequate manufacturing practices.

Have you ever been in a doctors surgery ever wonder what the smartly dressed medical rep is doing in the surgery the same rep that jumps the queue ahead of almost every body else .There are not there to remind the doctor that many of the doctors patients could come off the drugs they are taking for the rest of there lives if they changed the type and amount of food they eat, they are not there to remind the doctor that money could be saved by prescribing the generic drug that is available that does the same thing as the expensive branded drug.They are there to promote off label drug use ,give out free samples ,push the drugs that they supply over other drugs that may be better.They are there to increase the profits of big pharma.One of the many things they do is give out free samples of drugs they are promoting to the doctor, the doctor might give you such a free sample and then prescribe the same drug for you to take for the next few days or perhaps the rest of your life a good return on a free sample that costs very little to make.

see http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/pharma-firms-payments-to-doctors-to-be-disclosed-1.2012350

Pharma firms’ payments to doctors to be disclosed
Rules to bring ‘greater transparency’ to the industry

However, individual doctors will still be able to avoid having their name disclosed by refusing to give their consent under data protection rules.
In such cases, the amount of the benefit they receive will be included in the aggregate sum published by a pharmaceutical company but their name will not be disclosed.


Many Doctors are in Bed with the drug companies

One of the best ways to sell drugs is to establish strong ties with those who directly prescribe to the customer—the medical doctors

The drug companies leave doctors almost no choice in your care. Clinical practice guidelines are papers written by experts to help practicing doctors (too busy to review the scientific literature themselves) decide how to treat their patients. These summary papers are designed to influence the practice of a large number of physicians. A study published in 2002 in the Journal of the American Medical Association found eighty-seven percent of authors of these position papers had some form of interaction with the pharmaceutical industry.1 Fifty-eight percent had received financial support to perform research and 38% had served as employees or consultants for a pharmaceutical company. Of the 192 authors in the study, only 2 revealed this relationship in their publication. So your doctor learns what, how, when, how much, how long, how often and why to prescribe blood pressure, diabetic, heart, pain, and most other pills directly from the manufacturer making billions in profits.
I am sure there are exceptions to this , but at this point people go to the doctor expecting drugs and this is what they mostly get whether the need them .In fact doctors get little or no training in what food people should eat while at the same time it is known that the food we eat causes a lot of the illness we get.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/11755884/Lavish-trips-laid-on-by-drugs-firms-to-sway-NHS-staff.html
Lavish trips laid on by drugs firms to ‘sway’ NHS staff
Health service officials earn thousands organising and attending extravagant events where companies promote their products

The Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation meanwhile confirmed that they “are and have been carrying out inquiries in relation to procurement practices at Irish hospitals”.http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/mheymhcweygb/rss2/#!

Queen's former doctor, Sir Richard Thompson, has backed new campaign
Experts calling for urgent public enquiry into drugs firms' 'murky' practices
They say too much medicine is doing more harm than good worldwide
And claim many drugs such as statins are less effective than thought
Sir Richard Thompson, former-president of the Royal College of Physicians and personal doctor to the Queen for 21 years, warned tonight that many medicines are less effective than thought.
The physician is one of a group of six eminent doctors who today warn about the influence of pharmaceutical companies on drugs prescribing.
The experts, led by NHS cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, claim that too often patients are given useless – and sometimes harmful – drugs that they do not need.
They maintain drugs companies are developing medicines they can profit from, rather than those which are likely to be the most beneficial.
And they accuse the NHS of failing to stand up to the pharmaceutical giants.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3460321/How-Big-Pharma-greed-killing-tens-thousands-world-Patients-medicated-given-profitable-drugs-little-proven-benefits-leading-doctors-warn.html#ixzz41DXalwlf

Darkest Horse

I think you're mad. Stone mad. My experience with doctors is that they've always done their best. What I said about doctors also applies to pharma companies: there is no point in pumping millions into researching drugs that don't work. Ineffective drugs won't sell and if the pharma companies are as money hungry as you say, developing such underperforming drugs won't yield profits. No industry runs on the principles you've suggested. I have direct experience of this through my use of anti depressant and anti anxiety drugs which I have found nothing short of life changing: When I took a drug that didn't work after 6 months I got rid of it. When I found the one that worked, I held on to it for dear life. Guess which company makes more money from me?

joeprivate

Darkest Horse wrote: »

I think you're mad. Stone mad. My experience with doctors is that they've always done their best. What I said about doctors also applies to pharma companies: there is no point in pumping millions into researching drugs that don't work. Ineffective drugs won't sell and if the pharma companies are as money hungry as you say, developing such underperforming drugs won't yield profits. No industry runs on the principles you've suggested. I have direct experience of this through my use of anti depressant and anti anxiety drugs which I have found nothing short of life changing: When I took a drug that didn't work after 6 months I got rid of it. When I found the one that worked, I held on to it for dear life. Guess which company makes more money from me?

Perhaps I am mad but I am mad at the medical profession and the drug companies.

Do you realise that the medical profession is the 3rd leading cause of death ,that is iatrogentic damage (defined as a state of ill health or adverse effect resulting from medical treatment) is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer.

Let me pause while you take that in.

This means that doctors and hospitals are responsible for more deaths each year than cerebrovascular disease, chronic respiratory diseases, accidents, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and pneumonia.


If you have a interest in anti depressant and anti anxiety drugs have a look at this video Published on 12 May 2015

In his talk, Peter Gøtzsche - Overdiagnosed & Overmedicated will discuss the various ways in which psychiatry may be harming rather than helping its patients, citing evidence from his latest book "Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How big pharma has corrupted healthcare".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMhsPnoIdy4&ebc=ANyPxKr4TxkeeW9BsdEdKuoSXgw0ttOJ67HepszMLjcAbfHeq48Bu7_AFP8dotnbTepn-t8YKJpaSSt81PmagBeCdjCv5CoSnA

I also have some personal experience with doctors but at this point I don't wish to make it public.

Have a read of this and tell me you trust the medical/pharma industry

GSK has been fined for paying money to generic drug companies to prevent the potential entry of generic alternatives to its own "blockbuster" anti-depressant.

GlaxoSmithKline's so-called pay-to-delay agreements were found to have delayed the launch of generic alternatives to its anti-depressant Seroxat. Drugs companies including GSK fined £45m for paying to delay cheap versions of anti-depressant Seroxat
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/gsk-fined-45m-seroxat-paroxetine-anti-depressant-cma-delaying-cheap-versions-a6869011.html



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements

Year Company Settlement Violation(s) Product(s) Laws allegedly violated
(if applicable)
2012 GlaxoSmithKline[1] $3 billion ($1B criminal, $2B civil) Criminal: Off-label promotion, failure to disclose safety data.
Civil: paying kickbacks to physicians, making false and misleading
statements concerning the safety of Avandia, reporting false best
prices and underpaying rebates owed under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program Avandia, Wellbutrin,
Paxil, Advair,
Lamictal, Zofran,
Imitrex, Lotronex,
Flovent, Valtrex; False Claims Act/FDCA
2009 Pfizer[2] $2.3 billion Off-label promotion/kickbacks Bextra/Geodon/
Zyvox/Lyrica False Claims Act/FDCA
2013 Johnson & Johnson[6] $2.2 billion Off-label promotion/kickbacks Risperdal/Invega/
Nesiritide False Claims Act/FDCA
2012 Abbott Laboratories[7] $1.5 billion Off-label promotion Depakote False Claims Act/FDCA
2009 Eli Lilly[8] $1.4 billion Off-label promotion Zyprexa False Claims Act/FDCA
2001 TAP Pharmaceutical Products[9] $875 million Medicare fraud/kickbacks Lupron False Claims Act/
Prescription Drug Marketing Act
2012 Amgen[10] $762 million Off-label promotion/kickbacks Aranesp False Claims Act/FDCA
2010 GlaxoSmithKline[11] $750 million Poor manufacturing practices Kytril/Bactroban/
Paxil CR/Avandamet False Claims Act/FDCA
2005 Serono[12] $704 million Off-label promotion/
kickbacks/monopoly practices Serostim False Claims Act

clocks

Duggy747 wrote: »

I

Ask people what exactly they mean by "toxins", what specific toxins, and listen to the utter drivel that comes out. I think people seem to have forgotten what the kidneys and liver actually do, the miracle of wheatgrass or a coffee enema seems to the cures for all-ailments and ridding the body of "toxins".

The GF went to a few nutritionists / raw foodies who do cookery classes where I noticed a common theme with most of them was that they were staunchly anti-vaccinations................and mercury.

Will you be my wingman tonight ?

clocks

Darkest Horse wrote: »

I didn't say it wasn't difficult to do though. Eat 10,000 cals of broccoli a day and see how slim you get. Unrealistic but theoretically true so in my opinion this shouldn't be encouraged, particularly in light of many people classifying potatoes as one of their vegetables.

What's being encouraged is to eat vegetables, preferably raw or lightly cooked. That's amongst the single best piece of nutrition advice avaliable. (See "Simple Rules for Healthy Eating", The Upshot blog, Nytimes.com, 20th April 2015. (Apologies that I can't post the url.)

JumpShivers

Eating food quickly will give you more calories than eating it slowly. You'll get fatter if you eat quickly than slowly.

NiallBoo

JumpShivers wrote: »

Eating food quickly will give you more calories than eating it slowly. You'll get fatter if you eat quickly than slowly.

A typical case of Chinese whispers in nutrition advice.

It comes from the idea that if you eat slowly then your appetite will be satisfied before you've eaten as much and thus are likely to eat less ( Or at least less likely to over-eat).

Obviously though for a fixed quantity of food it makes no difference.

Latatian

The Chinese whispers thing happens a lot. Reminds me of the idea that a single bar of chocolate has more calories than a big mac meal.

The initial comparison was weight-for-weight- comparing the calories per 100g. But it got turned into 'one bar'.

MileyReilly

Fruit makes you fat!! Yea cause look at all the fat vegans.

strelok

there are loads of fat vegans...

MileyReilly

And a hell of a lot more fat non vegans.

Mellor

MileyReilly wrote: »

And a hell of a lot more fat non vegans.

So? The fact that there are some means that it can actually make you fat. Therefore tis not a myth.

The fact that there are less common means fruit is not as fattening as big macs, but nobody ever said it was.

Mellor

JumpShivers wrote: »

Eating food quickly will give you more calories than eating it slowly. You'll get fatter if you eat quickly than slowly.

Eat slowly, eat less food.
Eat less food, eat less calories.

Pretty simple. Very strange to suggest that speeds would change a given quantity.

Latatian wrote: »

Reminds me of the idea that a single bar of chocolate has more calories than a big mac meal.

Where was that?







Most of the things mentioned are myths, but more like "nutritional facts misconstrued as nonsense". Suppose it's got less of a ring to it.

ezra_pound

The anti fried bread brigade piss me off no end. It is so good!

MileyReilly

Mellor wrote: »

So? The fact that there are some means that it can actually make you fat. Therefore tis not a myth.

The fact that there are less common means fruit is not as fattening as big macs, but nobody ever said it was.

Fruit doesn't make you fat. Only a moron would think it does. Fruitarians are not fat. Fruit doesn't make you fat.

Dtp1979

MileyReilly wrote: »

Fruit doesn't make you fat. Only a moron would think it does. Fruitarians are not fat. Fruit doesn't make you fat.

Too much of anything that contains calories will make you fat. Only a moron would think it wouldn't.

Mellor

MileyReilly wrote: »

Fruit doesn't make you fat. Only a moron would think it does. Fruitarians are not fat. Fruit doesn't make you fat.

Too much of any food that has significant calories will make you fat.
Only a moron would fail to understand that.


A diet consisting of avocado, dried fruit, almonds, coconut cream/flesh/oil, fruit juices, etc, is very high in calories.
To think you can't gain fat on a fruitarian diet is idiocy.