Too much fruit?

paleoperson wrote: »

This is completely false.

Stating that there is plenty of protein in fruit is not making "a statement as fact".

If you're using the word "plenty" you're objectively not making a factual statement.

Even if I did make a statement of fact, which I did not, that wouldn't shed any light on how true it was and neither would it cause there to be a burden of proof on me.

If anyone made a factual statement it was that poster, stating fruit is "devoid of protein", devoid = nothing? I mean, come on, I'd like to assume they know more than thinking it's 0% protein but that was their factual statement.

If someone is too far beneath the level of understanding to know and lookup basic things, then there can in no way be any statement, such as yours, legitimately made that causes clear and intentional prejudice against the claims made.

You could have explained what you meant without wasting as much of your own time and effort in not answering.

'Devoid of' is much closer to the truth than 'plenty' when it comes to protein content of...plenty of fruit

paleoperson wrote: »

Fine, what I meant by "plenty" is "enough". You won't be malnourished or anything. Yes you will certainly find sources saying that more would be better. By me saying something and then immediately asked for sources on it, you can see how that can be seen as obnoxious. I'm going by my experience and what I've read etc. Noone said anything like you have to take it as fact.

You said there can be plenty of protein and fat in an all-fruit diet. It reads like you're saying there's more than enough of both and there may be 'enough' depending on what and how much of it you eat. Clarifying what you meant is all you had to do because I like fruit but there's no way i could eat enough to get enough protein from it.

People are challenged on comments on this forum a lot. Sometimes because someone doesn't believe them...you can either ignore or put forward why you believe what you do. If that's countered, you either dismiss the counter argument or consider it. Nothing wrong with being challenged on something - if you consider a counter argument and you're still happy your understanding is correct, then that's better all round.

Alright maybe I have been a little biased due to vegan propaganda, I suppose it is not a bad inquiry how you get your protein. For me personally I never worry about protein and have been going fine for years. Multiple blood tests came back fine, no problem. I used to eat beans for protein but I'd get bad heartburn from them sometimes, I never really liked them that much.

adox wrote: »

You’ve been asked to give examples of an all fruit diet that provides “plenty of protein and fats”

You are the one that posted it and have posted numerous times since without addressing it.

Seems a fairly simple question to me and a totally reasonable one to ask if the poster is doubtful that it is correct. I don’t see why you wouldn’t address it while still posting numerous times on this thread.

Okay. You seem to think I'm going to point to someone else who will tell you that this is indeed enough protein. But I am saying this from my own experience and reading like I said, that I believe I am getting plenty of protein. Enough protein. There is no higher authority and numbers I can crunch that I am appealing to. I have no clue how much protein I'm getting in terms of grams and I have never known. It is not something important to me.

Jimmy. wrote: »

I find myself going to the bathroom very often if I eat too much fruit. How do posters here reduce that?

Have done fruit and veg diet only, a week at a time. But evacuations are normal. No difference. Never feel better but I can’t sustain it, because I get bored and it’s antisocial.

Love me a bit of n=1 perfect diet studies with 0 tracking done.

paleoperson wrote: »

Stating that there is plenty of protein in fruit is not making "a statement as fact".

That's actually precisely what it is.

If you're using the word "plenty" you're objectively not making a factual statement.

I don't see how the use of "Plenty" means it's not aimed as representing fact.
Objective statements are, by definition, factual.

Even if I did make a statement of fact, which I did not, that wouldn't shed any light on how true it was and neither would it cause there to be a burden of proof on me.

You made the statement, and were asked for an example. That's entirely reasonably.
You don't have to answer, but failing to do so speaks volumes.

If anyone made a factual statement it was that poster, stating fruit is "devoid of protein", devoid = nothing? I mean, come on, I'd like to assume they know more than thinking it's 0% protein but that was their factual statement.

If someone is too far beneath the level of understanding to know and lookup basic things, then there can in no way be any statement, such as yours, legitimately made that causes clear and intentional prejudice against the claims made.

I think it was clear that I wasn't saying fruit is absolutely 0% protein. A bit silly to take it that way.
To be clear, I'm saying that your statement is incorrect, and that an all fruit diet doesn't have plenty or enough protein and fat.

"too far beneath the level of understanding"...lol, that's funny. Actually it's the opposite case. I'm saying there's not enough precisely because I understand the macro profile of fruit. I don't need to look it up, but if I did it would be trivial to check google and find out that a banana has 1% protein and even less fat.

Well done on wrecking the thread.

runawaybishop wrote: »

Well done on wrecking the thread.

It's mindless ****e like this is a big part of why I don't add more.

I found this amusing


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/monkeys-banned-from-eating-bananas-at-devon-zoo-9058856.html

Monkeys at a zoo in Devon have been banned from eating bananas – for the sake of their health.

Zookeepers said the fruit grown and exported for human consumption have far higher levels of sugar than the ones monkeys would eat in the wild – to the point that it’s bad for their teeth and can lead to diabetes.

Despite the obvious cliché, the animals are now only allowed to have bananas as a special treat or when they need medication. Nutritionists likened it to giving children cake and chocolate, but added that unlike children the deprived monkeys “can’t complain”.


Experts at Paignton Zoo, Devon, said the sugar-free diet was working wonders for the animals – even making them calmer and more sociable.

Senior head keeper of mammals Matthew Webb said: “We have noticed an improvement in the condition of primate coats - in particular the colour and thickness of the fur of the Sulawesi crested black macaques.


“Smaller monkeys such as tamarins and marmosets are highly-strung animals and live in tight-knit social groups which can be quite aggressive at times. Reducing the sugar in their diets has calmed them down and made their groups more settled.”

silverharp wrote: »

I found this amusing

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/monkeys-banned-from-eating-bananas-at-devon-zoo-9058856.html

It's not amusing at all. It's disturbing this kind of tripe they come up with about sugar where everything is turned on its head

First of all bananas are the only fruit I know of that is artificially selected for beyond recognition. If there is any problem or difficulty with fruit, yes the finger could be pointed to them. It's why I don't eat too many bananas myself. This compared to grains where the vast majority have been completely artificially selected beyond recognition.

A lot of what they're saying is just fabricated. The idea that wild fruit is bitter, low in sugar or whatever else suits the agenda of the writers is at best pop science and at worst lying. For example cultivating and breeding practices tend to reduce sugar content in tomatoes:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/fruits/article/biochemical-factors-contributing-to-tomato-fruit-sugar-content-a-review/0B8859B07B05FE57EF249A30D2F182F8

Many wild varieties have a lot more sugar and are a lot sweeter:

https://deniseminger.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/

Soluble sugar and malic acid contents in mature fruits of 364 apple accessions were quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Fructose and sucrose represented the major components of soluble sugars in cultivated fruits, whilst fructose and glucose were the major items of sugars in wild fruits. Wild fruits were significantly more acidic than cultivated fruits, whilst the average concentration of total sugars and sweetness index were quite similar between cultivated and wild fruits. Thus, our study suggests that fruit acidity rather than sweetness is likely to have undergone selection during apple domestication. Additionally, malic acid content was positively correlated with glucose content and negatively correlated with sucrose content. This suggests that selection of fruit acidity must have an effect on the proportion of sugar components in apple fruits. Our study provides information that could be helpful for future apple breeding.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814614013995

So this thing that she stated:

“People usually try to improve their diet by eating more fruit - but fruit cultivated for humans is much higher in sugar and much lower in protein and fibre than most wild fruit because we like our fruit to be so sweet and juicy,” she said.

is completely bogus. It has nothing to do with sugar, the whole thing against sugar is a myth.

I think zookeepers are a bit like farmers in that they're very good at what they do but they don't have the in-depth theoretical knowledge, it's more a going with their gut and then following expert advice type of thing. The advice here about bananas was likely given to them by animal experts, I doubt I'd ever give the advice myself but considering the artificial selection bananas have been put true it's not the wildest idea out there.

But their knowledge is much more practical and with a keen eye for things going on, blended with some superstition, anecdotal accounts of how this or that helped, and certainly can't be relied on for getting real scientific knowledge about the animals.

rubadub wrote: »

I remember hearing about this

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jan/28/ashton-kutcher-hospital-steve-jobs-diet

He was eating nuts, and many "nuts" can be high in protein & fat, and some things colloquially called "nuts" can botanically be called fruits. But it was blatantly obvious the OP was not talking about any sort of "nuts" when they spoke of fruit. -I was expecting paleoperson to give that as a pedantic smartarse reply to back up the "there can be plenty of protein and fat in all-fruit diets" statement.

I'm not a pedant, I try to use words as others are using them, otherwise what's the point of language. I don't mislead people and then say "gotcha", what a waste of time.

Still waiting........

I try to use words as others are using them, otherwise what's the point of language. I don't mislead people and then say "gotcha", what a waste of time.

That's literally the opposite of what you are doing.
You knew what I was saying about an all-fruit diet, except you are clinging that hard on for "devoid".
You also keep misusing relative for some reason.

paleoperson wrote: »

I
"plenty" is relative. 1% may sound like a small number, but 1% of an apple being cyanide would kill you. By this measure every fruit has "plenty" of protein,

Plenty is relative. 1% of cyanide is more than "plenty". It's very high because other foods have far less cyanide than that. Bitter almonds are poisonous due to cyanide. They are 0.5%. That's how relative works.

Bananas are 1% protein. Beans are 21%. Beef is 25%

Which unquestionably proves that banana are relatively low in protein.

but ok I'll follow up by stating that you should eat some vegetables and leafy greens as well so you don't have to worry about it at all.

Or you could actually eat some good sources of protein.

If you need any more, then why aren't the people who eat just apples dead? There are people out there that do do that. When have you heard of anyone ever having "protein deficiency"?

What about people who eat bread and biscuits and the like all the time? Where are they getting their protein? There are vegan weightlifters and body builders.

I was eating lots of nuts until a few months back but I decided to give them up because I prefer a leaner look and they were the only high calorie things that were putting on pounds. Why amn't I dead yet? I've done it for far longer before.

Something, particularly a diet, being unhealthy doesn't instantly kill you. It's slowly negative over a long period.

Of course there are vegan bodybuilders. There are vegan sources of protein, that they eat a lot of.
Pea protein, soy, beans, tofu, setian, tempeh, lentils, legumes, etc. None of them are fruit.

There's no issue with a vegan diet (as long somebody makes sure to get a balanced diet). The issue was completely with your fruititarian suggestion.

The body produces its own protein, it's not like an essential vitamin.

I think this confirms you haven't a breeze about diet or nutrition.

Wiki wrote:

An essential amino acid, or indispensable amino acid, is an amino acid that cannot be synthesized de novo (from scratch) by the organism, and thus must be supplied in its diet. The nine amino acids humans cannot synthesize are phenylalanine, valine, threonine, tryptophan, methionine, leucine, isoleucine, lysine, and histidine