Join us at medcram.com for more continuing medical education videos. Here's a study showing NO association between fruit consumption and Non alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7512147/ Here’s more information on juices, smoothies and whole fruit: www.diabetes.org.uk/guide-to-diabetes/enjoy-food/what-to-drink-with-diabetes/fruit-juices-and-smoothies
Interesting link but it also reads like people are only planning to buy premade "smoothies": "Fruit juice and smoothies, on the other hand, have most of the fibre (roughage) removed when they are made and it’s very easy to drink large quantities in a short space of time" Um....I have smoothie every day using whole plant foods and my breakfast comes in right about 35 grams of fiber and right at 956 calories. I wouldn't just blindly say that smoothies have most of the fiber removed. Store bought pre-packaged ones, yeap. Jamba Juice where you can watch them throw in whole fruit, veg, greens, and flax (assuming you don't get a smoothie that is just juice and ice) or making at home - great way to go and not fiber removed or even low in fiber if you are using the right produce. My breakfast smoothie has more fiber than the average person gets in two days.
So according to the image at 10:30, This scientist is saying that whole fruits due to there chemical structure don't rise your glucose as much as previously thought? if I have this correct, than how do you explain the rapid rise in glucose we see in thousands of people who are now using continuous glucose monitors ( CGM) and see exactly that !
@@flolou8496 The information in this video is misleading at best. Only a fool would argue that whole fruit (eaten whole) is not better than the juice from the fruit. Yes, the glycemic index and insulin spike of any liquid sugar will be far worse than consuming the fruit in whole, but that entirely misses the point. The point being that most fruits have been bioengineered by selective breeding over time to be sweeter and larger over time, with better shelf life. That fruit was naturally intended to be consumed seasonally, not bred and sold year-round. And fruit contains fructose (arguably worse than glucose), which must be processed at the liver, contributing directly to NAFLD. Arguably, the real point isn't whether whole fruit, or fruit juice causes the bigger insulin spike, but rather, how they contribute to the total carbohydrate (glycemic) load that must be processed by the body, which evidence now shows results in increased inflammation, and the load placed on the pancreas and liver. The glycemic spike will be softer when the whole fruit is consumed, but the total glycemic load will be the same, as it is directly and entirely correlated with the total grams of carbs being ingested. It is this sort of mis-information or selective positioning of the information, that makes things so confusing for people without medical or scientific background, muddying the waters, or worse, giving them the justification to "consume more fruit because MedCram said it was better than drinking the juice or Coke".
@@flolou8496 In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC, Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt at 25:33 of the video
Pharmacist here. Thank you for such great info. Once again, you’ve explained it in a manner that was thorough, concise, and scientifically correct. Glad I subscribed.
My obese uncle who is a pharmacist sent me this video to convince me that low-carb was not beneficial. In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
@@contrarian604 : makes sense, but it all depends on the persons total diet. I know the doc on MedCram isn’t attempting to promote anything other than what is a balanced diet with a “rainbow plate”…and healthy proteins…not a diet of JUST fruits & candy. It’s a fact the intake of the multiple antioxidants in veggies & fruits are vital to healthy diet and have anti inflammatory effects. Our liver appreciates having bromelian from pineapple just to name one example!
@@birdgirl1516 "Veggies and fruit" being described in the same phrase is a misnomer. I have no issues with veggies, as they don't contain fructose. Fruits contain fructose, which is a direct toxin on the liver, regardless of the rate of absorption (as mitigated when consumed with fiber). Fructose is a direct cause of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, full-stop. 50% of the american population have full-blown NAFLD, and other populations aren't far behind. Many "healthy vegans" and otherwise non-obese folks have fatty liver, and too much visceral adipose. I was one of them until I learned of these dangers less than two years ago. Fructose must be viewed in the same lens as alcohol, sorry. Any health benefits of fruit must be viewed on the risk-reward basis of pickling one's liver. Sorry, this is basic biochemistry of anything that must be processed at the liver.
@@contrarian604 : understand your points & position-however, think about this; anything in excess can be harmful to vital organs and every single thing in our body has a biochemistry cascade. For example, red meat is high in protein, but digesting it is definitely a taxing job for your liver. Breaking down proteins is not easy for the liver and can lead to various liver-related issues. Also, excess protein build-up in the liver can lead to fatty liver diseases that can have adverse effects on the brain and kidney. (This is for those who are extremists, in my opinion) I always believe in balance , like Mediterranean diet for example. And actually it’s not just “my belief”….Mediterranean and cultural Japanese diets are known to be some of THE HEALTHIEST
@@birdgirl1516 Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease afflicts 30-50% of the population, depending on the source of information. Directly quoted from the Pfizer website. Pay particular attention the second last paragraph. Pfizer will be happy to design and sell us a drug to clear our excess fructose, if people are too stupid to limit their dietary intake of said poison: If you check the labels on your favorite jarred marinara sauce, low-calorie salad dressing, or loaf of bread, you may be surprised to find that they contain added simple sugars - one of the most popular forms of which is high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a sweetener used in many processed foods. Over the past four decades, sugar has steadily crept into American diets - a trend that can be largely attributed to the food industry’s embrace of HFCS, used to enhance the flavor of all types of products, not just sweets. And whereas dietary fat was once seen as the main public health enemy, in recent years, researchers are finding that the added sugars in our diet, mainly in the form of fructose, are contributing to high levels of obesity, diabetes, and liver disease. To help address these growing epidemics, Pfizer scientists are working to develop a novel medicine that blocks fructose metabolism to help prevent the buildup of fat, or steatosis, in the liver. When the liver has too much fat, it can lead to a more serious condition, known as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which causes scarring and eventually liver failure. “Steatosis, or fatty liver, is the very first step in a bad journey,” says Thomas Magee, Senior Director, Internal Medicine Research Unit, based at Pfizer’s Kendall Square, Cambridge research site. Magee is a medicinal chemist who was the project leader during the discovery and early development of a fructose metabolizing compound that is currently being evaluated in clinical trials. Not all sugars are the same If you’re comparing calories, the two main types of dietary sugars - fructose and glucose - are exactly the same. (Sucrose, or table sugar, is a combination of fructose and glucose.) What makes fructose more harmful is the way the body metabolizes it. Unlike glucose, which is used by cells as an energy source, fructose is metabolized by the liver, where it promotes the synthesis of fat. In fact, some experts believe our bodies are not designed to handle this excess fructose. “In evolutionary history, it was a rare treat, where you might find fructose in a beehive or seasonal fruit, serving as an energy source when food was scarce. Now those with first-world diets have a constant onslaught, and our bodies have not caught up,” says Magee. Today, HFCS, which is made from cornstarch and contains approximately 55% fructose, is found in most processed foods and sugary drinks. Sugar can also come in other disguised forms, such as cane sugar or beet sugar (high in sucrose) and agave nectar and honey (high in fructose). And our diets reflect this change: some 200 years ago, Americans ate about two pounds of sugar a year. Today, Americans consume on average greater than 120 pounds of sugar a year. Some of this increase is likely due to the fact that, as food makers began to take fat out of their products to respond to the rise in heart disease in the early '90s, they added more sugar to improve the flavor of what was now “fat free.” “Ironically, replacing fat in food with sugar just leads to fat in the liver and in circulation - none of which is good for your heart,” says Magee.
Very comprehensive and debunked many myths in a simple way. I am a radiologist and every time I watch your video - I feel I am back in my medical school.
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
As a person who tries to keep a low carb diet and follows many of the low carb people on TH-cam, it is well understood that eating fruit with sugar in it is not the same as just consuming the sugar. I have been telling people for many years that the best way to drink fruit juice is to just eat the fruit. As a diabetic I know that eating most fruits will raise my blood sugar some. Picking and choosing which fruits and the volume that I consume makes a big difference. Also, when I consume fruit is important. I like to do it not long before I have some good physical activity.
@@andreawisner7358 Have you ever been diabetic, and tested how things effect you? I agree that whole foods and getting rid of processed foods make a big difference, but keeping my carbs low also helps a lot. Each of us has our own body that responds to different diets differently. I would hope that people would do what works for them.
@@m8s4lif No I haven't, and yes I understand that certain "whole" foods like potatoes and rice will affect diabetes until it is resolved with diet and weight loss. I see those foods as being processed because they're cooked. I wish you success in beating diabetes.
You have to be careful when listening to science from people who have an existing agenda. I respect Dr Sheault, but he is associated with Loma Linda University, which is well known to be plant based advocates. Science does not have pre-existing bias...people do. Why is it that Loma Linda people and other plant based researchers always tell you that low carb is bad?
For over 25 years, I suffered from Fructose Intolerance. It was severe. I was afraid to eat any fruit because I never knew what was going to happen. I later learned that the Fructose levels varied greatly depending on ripeness. 4 years ago, I realized that I had liver methylation problems. Once I started supplementing accordingly, my Fructose Intolerance vanished. That being said, call me the "Canary" in the coal mine. The effects of fruit may be less but they are most definetly there.
It's interesting the American Diabetes and Heart associations don't have nearly the amount of great information this channel has. One would think with their budgets, they would have the best information! Awesome work as always, incredibly detailed and thorough! Love your videos
That's because they are money laundering entities for corporations & politicians, which is why there's so much bad & outdated info on their sites that end up doing more harm than good. But why do they care as long as they can make money off of sick people since healthy people don't need them?...
You are mistaken. These 2 organizations have ample referenced studies attached to all their recommendations. You need to read the whole guidelines. Also this doctor often says wrong information tucked in with the many thoughts he discusses to the point that any reader not versed in his topics will not as pot them. Flattery does not make him correct.
Fructose is Fructose, regardless of the fiber. Bad information for the 50% of the western population afflicted with Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Pfizer scientists are working to develop a novel medicine that blocks fructose metabolism to help prevent the buildup of fat, or steatosis, in the liver. When the liver has too much fat, it can lead to a more serious condition, known as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which causes scarring and eventually liver failure. “Steatosis, or fatty liver, is the very first step in a bad journey,” says Thomas Magee, Senior Director, Internal Medicine Research Unit, based at Pfizer’s Kendall Square, Cambridge research site. Magee is a medicinal chemist who was the project leader during the discovery and early development of a fructose metabolizing compound that is currently being evaluated in clinical trials. Not all sugars are the same If you’re comparing calories, the two main types of dietary sugars - fructose and glucose - are exactly the same. (Sucrose, or table sugar, is a combination of fructose and glucose.) What makes fructose more harmful is the way the body metabolizes it. Unlike glucose, which is used by cells as an energy source, fructose is metabolized by the liver, where it promotes the synthesis of fat. In fact, some experts believe our bodies are not designed to handle this excess fructose. “In evolutionary history, it was a rare treat, where you might find fructose in a beehive or seasonal fruit, serving as an energy source when food was scarce. Now those with first-world diets have a constant onslaught, and our bodies have not caught up,” says Magee. Today, HFCS, which is made from cornstarch and contains approximately 55% fructose, is found in most processed foods and sugary drinks. Sugar can also come in other disguised forms, such as cane sugar or beet sugar (high in sucrose) and agave nectar and honey (high in fructose). And our diets reflect this change: some 200 years ago, Americans ate about two pounds of sugar a year. Today, Americans consume on average greater than 120 pounds of sugar a year.
@@contrarian604 Fruits are associated with a no increase and meat an INCREASE in non alcoholic liver disease. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7512147/
Thank you soo much Being a doctor i wondered why we are kept away from knowledge of nutrition..in all those years in med schools we are told about pathologies , mechanisms and drugs😢😢
I had a dog which was type one diabetic and I belong to a diabetic forum . I thought no sugar or carbs is the correct approach which is what I did and she struggled with blood sugar going very low and spiking very high until when I noticed that if I gave a spoonful of honey for getting a bit lower she stabilized and did not sound like she was . The lightbulb went off and realized she needed carbs to stabilize blood sugar . There were members with similar problems on the forum actually stating protein was spiking blood sugar that made no sense . In the end I realized carbs were important to stable blood sugar .
You’re a great educational resource man. Appreciate your videos thanks for putting them online for us. Started following you when the pandemic first hit and never stopped because your videos are so well explained and interesting.
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
This is so helpful, Dr. Seheult. You've clarified and demystified so much. I hope you continue to produce more along these lines so that we, your audience, continue to be better equipped to manage our diets, health plans, and longevity goals. All the best!!
Strawberries and blackberries, and to a lesser extent blueberries. I honestly can't see why you would be missing out on anything just stopping there and including those. They are plenty healthy enough and are relatively low sugar.
Awesome presentation on natural whole fruit. In the studies on the beta carotene and vitamin E supplements it would be nice to know more about the supplements in the studies. Like whether they were sourced from organic plant matter or synthetic. It does make sense that isolating a component without the cofactors might do this.
There's so much more to the vitamin E story ( look up Barry Tan). My son hadl lung cancer and eventually put on palliative chemo but after his parents refused to give up we put him on high dose Vit E and he's making an amazing recovery and he's just one of many. Personally I feel Vit E is amazing but there's different types and studies generally only focus on the common one.
My grandfather is 83 year olds and still working (by choice) and is still super sharp mentally. This man eats 5 fruits per day and has his entire life. My childhood memories of him involve him holding some piece of fruit in his hand haha. He also loves his vegetables and salads. Thanks again for the great video. You explain things so well.
yes, a hundred years ago fruit was available as it is today, all year round, and your grandfather seems to have been clairvoyant so he knew that he should eat five servings of fruit a day as recommended today ... hahahah ... how yes no
Great information! I was just wondering about this topic, as I am trying to eat low carb for my health, but I love fruit and really didn't want to give it up, especially because I wasn't sure if taking supplements would replace the lost nutrients from not eating fruit. Now I know that I can continue to eat fruit and not worry about insulin spiking and resistance.
ANY carbs that are naturally connected to fiber will be beneficial. Avoid REFINED carbs, i.e. processed carbs in pasta, cookies, bread, and sugary anything. Stay healthy :-) .
I follow a meat based “low carb” diet. I eat fruit with the majority of my daily meals (mainly berries, melons and citrus). I have no problem with my insulin levels as a result. If you’re really worried about “insulin spikes” just do about 10 minutes of light to moderate intensity activity (like a brisk walk for example) after your meal. Brings the blood sugar back down.
This video bends the truth and distorts the health-aspects of eating whole fruit. Yes, consuming the whole fruit 'fiber-in" will still inject fructose into your system, and cause a glycemic response, albeit dampened relative to a liquid sugar. If you are trying to eat low-carb, then one must cut the fruit. Carbs is the culprit of chronic inflammatory disease, and fructose is a toxin that directly attacks the liver. No amount of fiber will reduce the total load being placed on the pancreas and the liver, when fruit is being consumed, and fructose ingested.
Patrick YVR, Fruit is a food source that humans and our ancestors have been eating for literally millions of years. It’s not “toxic”, that is pure fantasy and falsehood. Insulin release after meals is normal human physiology. Without it, it’s impossible to maintain proper electrolyte balance or maintain optimal sex hormones (like testosterone). The diet that our ancestors have eaten since time immemorial included not only meat, but also fruit and honey. As a result these are foods that we as humans are specifically adapted to thrive on. I used to follow a ketogenic diet. It tanked my testosterone, gave me electrolytes problems, and made it nearly impossible for me to gain muscle mass. All of those problems went away when I reintroduced fruit, honey, and raw milk. Additionally, anyone who is in a long term constant ketogenic state is by definition systemically insulin resistant (yes, you read that correctly, ketogenic diets make people insulin resistant). The body loses the enzymes and use of the machinery that properly processes carbohydrates as fuel (insulin resistance results). What matters for health is not that the body has a blood sugar spike after eating fruit. This is normal. What matters is how quickly it comes back down, and even more so what your fasting blood sugar is. I have lower fasting sugars now that I eat carbs than I ever did when I was following a ketogenic diet.
Wow! Dr. Seheult👍Another one packed with data and info! You can explain the complex medical data in a such clear way which always amazes me. You are absolutely talented 👍 Appreciate all your effort 🙏
Terrific information & well presented Doc! Yet another video to send off to my cousin (M.D.) for viewing! This is a very important concept for people to understand. Thanks for these videos! 👍👍
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
Thank you. Dr Robert Lustig reported the same in his work with children recovering from brain surgery. He and his team controlled their diets carefully. They turned from couch potatoes to normally active youngsters (much to the relief of their parents.)
@@fred3000 Yes please, as it's difficult to parse how the statement about how, "Lustig reported the same in his work with children recovering from brain surgery" might correlate to this video.
One analogy I heard was: "Fruit contains a toxin (sugar), but the fruit also contains the antidote (fiber)." Humans take great pride in removing the antidote.
@@wocket42 I'm not implying that the net gain is zero. I eat fruit. The nutrients are valuable. The fiber does more than just reduce the potential harm from sugar. But I avoid some types of especially sugary fruits, such as grapes.
@@jimh.5286 In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The lower GI of consuming whole fruit may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
Thank you doc, you've been my go to information on health ever since the pandemic started. The combination of real peer reviewed studies with your own personal assessment is top notch.
What an excellent video! I used to watch this channel in the first year of Covid, but then my interest wore off. Now I have rediscovered this channel. This video's explanation about sugars contained in fruits especially resonates with me. Until a couple of months ago, I ate a lot of chocolates and added sugar, resulting in undefined pains in my stomach and tiredness. After comprehensive medical tests, nothing was found wrong, but I decided to change my diet, and I almost completely abolished these added sugars, and instead ate fruits. Result: I lost 5% of my weight in 2 months, and I feel much better, even though my initial weight was not unhealthy to begin with. I was actually surprised that eating fruits could result in so much weight loss.
This is one of those intuitive things that is simply study reinforced. More study needs to be made between the difference in results between masticated fruits and smoothied fruits.
I just discovering the effect of smoothies is similar to juicing this week. Quite a shock. The gluten goddess also explains these studies and research. Apples forever.
Unfortunately, it's fundamentally wrong, as slowing absorption with fiber doesn't reduce the total load placed on the body by the sugar content of the apple or piece of fruit. In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
Thanks again to Dr. Seheult for his great insights. I was shocked once when I offered a very educated professional the first dibs on a fruit plate served at a business meeting. He declined, and told me no thanks--it has too much sugar! I had never had anyone tell me that about raw melon and strawberries. I would have understood if it was a can of cola or root beer, but it blew me away that he was worried about eating fresh fruit to avoid sugar. My understanding is that there is lots of fiber in fruit that slows absorption, that fruit is mostly water, and that the amount of sugar in a slice of melon is nothing so high as in a can of soda.
@@gilessteve Most likely not, but it raises a good question, why would there be a significant difference between a whole apple VS apple slices, etc...?
The information in this video is misleading at best. Only a fool would argue that whole fruit (eaten whole) is not better than the juice from the fruit. Yes, the glycemic index and insulin spike of any liquid sugar will be far worse than consuming the fruit in whole, but that entirely misses the point. The point being that most fruits have been bioengineered by selective breeding over time to be sweeter and larger over time, with better shelf life. That fruit was naturally intended to be consumed seasonally, not bred and sold year-round. And fruit contains fructose (arguably worse than glucose), which must be processed at the liver, contributing directly to NAFLD. Arguably, the real point isn't whether whole fruit, or fruit juice causes the bigger insulin spike, but rather, how they contribute to the total carbohydrate (glycemic) load that must be processed by the body, which evidence now shows results in increased inflammation, and the load placed on the pancreas and liver. The glycemic spike will be softer when the whole fruit is consumed, but the total glycemic load will be the same, as it is directly and entirely correlated with the total grams of carbs being ingested. It is this sort of mis-information or selective positioning of the information, that makes things so confusing for people without medical or scientific background, muddying the waters, or worse, giving them the justification to "consume more fruit because MedCram said it was better than drinking the juice or Coke". I too am a health professional, in my early 50s. Five years ago, I would have consumed all the fruit without issue. Now, I would react the same, and only go for the darker berries.
@@flolou8496 there is zero difference between eating a whole apple, and a sliced apple. Both will contain approx 19g of carbs, primarily fructose. Fructose is particularly toxic to the body as it must be processed by the liver only, just like alcohol. If you believe that carbohydrates are the killer and cause of inflammatory disease, then you’ll understand why I haven’t had a banana, orange or apple for at least six months. Blueberries will be in season where I live next month, so I may gorge myself while they are in season (and fresh, local and cheap) but my fruit intake the rest of the year is near-zero. When I speak with my patients about cutting their fruit intake, I get a LOT of push-back because many are emotionally attached to their daily fruit and fruit smoothies. I’ll eat veggies, but I’ve basically eliminated my fruit intake as the carbs are unnecessary and the fructose is especially to be avoided.
This video bends the truth and distorts the health-aspects of eating whole fruit. Yes, consuming the whole fruit 'fiber-in" will still inject fructose into your system, and cause a glycemic response, albeit dampened relative to a liquid sugar. If you are trying to eat low-carb, then one must cut the fruit. Carbs is the culprit of chronic inflammatory disease, and fructose is a toxin that directly attacks the liver. No amount of fiber will reduce the total load being placed on the pancreas and the liver, when fruit is being consumed, and fructose ingested.
@contrarian604. Note taken. I’ve eliminated the amount of carbs in my diet, eg white rice white bread (occasionally sourdough bread), and potatoes and no cereal. I do, on occasion, like some fruits with my cottage cheese which is mostly berries. I realize that an apple has quite a bid if fructose.
@@ppw8716 In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
Thank you for putting this issue in context. I’ve made this argument recently in a group of commenters that apples did not have the same effect as sugar /carbs. I was not able to articulate my intuitive point. In future I will share this link to backup my statement. In the meantime, I still have my apple at least one time per day in place of a surgery desert.👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿😊
Fruit juice is fine and it is a very healthy drink. The problem is people throw away the fruit juice packaging which should be consumed while drinking the juice. Because the cardboard of packaging is full of fibers which slows down the sugar absorption in the gut.
Excellent video. A couple of things to keep in mind though. Firstly fruit isn't now what fruit used to be. Commercial fruit and vegetables are mostly grown on depleted soils - they add some inorganic chemicals back to try and counter this but it's far from ideal. Most modern soil is very deficient in organic nutrients - especially the micronutrients - organic farmers use seaweed and concentrated extracts of same to put back these elements back into constantly used soils. Another thing to consider is that modern fruit has been bred to be very sweet. Google what bananas and grapes, for instance, originally looked like. Not that long ago there were two types of apples - red and green. Now my supermarket isle has numerous types of apples all claiming to be sweeter than the others. Keeping that in mind I would add that fruit is ok if you eat it correctly - by that I mean in moderation if you are not too overweight. Don't snack on it too much and don't begin your day with it as it will make you hungry for the rest of the day - and hungry for sugar/starch (carbs) at that. Treat fruit as a desert - eat at the end of your meal. Start with a salad with good oils on it, some homemade sauerkraut (one of the few superfoods), some protein, then a piece of fruit/yogurt for dessert. Practice intermittent fasting and as you clean your diet and become healthier investigate the benefits of longer (water and electrolytes only) fasts. Fasting - the omnipotent healer within us all.
Grapefruit used to be a very different fruit when I was a kid. It was sour and tangy. Now, it's super sweet. Apples - same thing. Apples were not that sweet when I was a kid.
@@IamsTokiWartooth there are hundreds of varieties of apples -- there are not many varieties of grapefruit and they are not sold by variety. There are about 3 varieties available at most, and usually only one in stock - I worked on a grocery supply chain planning project.
I allow myself to eat as much fruit as I want and because of all the fiber I never eat too much. I always feel good after I eat fruit as opposed to eating a candy bar with the same amount of sugar. I’m thankful for all the data but the body intuitively knows what is healthy if you’re listening.
Obviously eating a whole fruit is better than a candy bar. But fruit has fructose, and fructose is carbohydrate that must be processed at the liver. This video bends the truth and distorts the health-aspects of eating whole fruit. Yes, consuming the whole fruit 'fiber-in" is healthier than downing just the juice, but it will still inject fructose into your system, and cause a glycemic response, albeit dampened relative to a liquid sugar. If you are trying to eat low-carb, then one must cut the fruit. Carbs is arguably the root culprit of chronic inflammatory disease, and fructose is a toxin that directly attacks the liver. No amount of fiber will reduce the total load being placed on the pancreas and the liver, when fruit is being consumed, and fructose ingested.
@@contrarian604 Cultures of longevity, referred to as “blue zones” are all high carb cultures. They eat roughly 50-85% of their diet in carbs. They have longevity and cognition into their elderly years on average. It is a fallacy to think whole, unrefined carbs are inflammatory and dangerous.
@@HealthAndHomestead there is too much emphasis on only the dietary component of the so-called blue zones such as Okinawans and those living the “Mediterranean diet “ A significant portion of their long lives free of illness comes from good sleep, routines free of nighttime modern activities, year-round exposure to sunlight and the benefits of near infrared (NIR) energy. A diet that is free of PUFA seed-oils, and as you mention, skipping meals and probably free-range meat and seafood. None of these apply to those of us who live in the modern world and have a daily commute. Illness rates now even in these areas is rising due to the influx of modern convenience foods. It may be an oversimplification that “carbs are the root of the problems, but likewise it is a misnomer to assume that the outdoor environment doesn’t play a role in the longevity of blue zone residents, or that carbohydrate in sufficient quantity doesn’t place an inflammatory load on the body over the fullness of time. Carbohydrate consumption whether processed or not, results in a direct load being placed on the pancreas. There are no essential carbohydrates, the body can make all it requires from other macros (protein or fat). Carbs cause the highest insulin response, and fruits have fructose, a direct causative agent to non alcoholic fatty liver disease. I have only one life. I’ve been to Okinawa to visit, and can’t move there. I’ll hedge my bets by restricting my intake of carbs (whole and processed), and limiting fruits to those local and in season. Blueberry season is right around the corner but I have patients that consume one pound a week of frozen blueberries in their morning smoothies. The most pushback I get from my patients is from those with a regular fruit habit. Blending whole fruit negates the insulin-blunting effect of consuming fiber-in. As I’ve mentioned, the fiber does nothing to reduce the total glycemic load being placed on the pancreas and liver. Buyer beware. Half the American population has NAFLD, and many are not obese and don’t even know it.
@@contrarian604 OH MY GOD!! BE AFRAID. BE VERY AFRAID OF FRUCTOSE CONTAINING NATURAL FRUITS THAT HUMANS HAVE BEEN EATING FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS! NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS SURVIVED!!
@@contrarian604 Again, no association with liver disease (non alcoholic). If this were the case we would se that go up. Instead we see meat associated with it: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7512147/
Just one question ... If I blend fruit into a smoothie is that not the same net effect as mechanical breakdown of the fruit from chewing? Wouldn't the fiber content still remain the same after blending thus still preserving the healthful effect of the fruit while negating the concern regarding, "free fructose"? Obviously the blending process leads to greater "destruction" of the bonds but does that totally negate the benefit of adding whole fruit to a smoothie? Thank you.
Good question. I think it’s a continuum. If you’ve noticed the graph with the applesauce, that seem to be pretty close to eating natural food. I’m not sure if the smoothie would move beyond applesauce and into the juice range.
MedCram is a good channel, but this video is blatantly wrong. Slowing absorption with fiber doesn't reduce the total load placed on the body by the sugar content of the apple or piece of fruit. In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
@@contrarian604 What theyneed to figure out is why these series of studies disagree, before blatantly saying one group is wrong, and the other is correct.
@@b_uppy I think we need to rely more on common sense, than endless studies. Fruit has fructose. Fructose is just like alcohol, and must be processed at the liver. Fructose is a direct contributor to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, that's why they call it non-alcoholic fatty liver disease!!! They could just as easily call it fruit-caused fatty liver disease. Fruit contains carbohydrate, a direct burden on the pancreas, and arguably has only fractions of the "lots of nutrients" we have been led to believe by the fruit-industry and lobby. No thanks, I'll stick with whole foods, and limit my fruits to seasonal and to those which are low in CHO.
My graduate studies were in Epidemiology and Community Health. Although I never worked professionally in the field I did operate a consulting business which incorporated many elements of my graduate education. I have very little regard for the Western Medical Community and I am routinely aghast at the sheer ignorance and arrogance of MD's. PA's, NP's, ad nauseum. This channel is a welcome and refreshing exception. Subscribed.
I agree with you whole heartedly. I don't know if it is a personality type, or the training of the system, but I dare say as I have gotten older that my respect for doctors has significantly decreased. I think the US medical system is excellent for acute traumatic injuries and life sustaining care. Lifestyle conditions, stress, and the mind/ body issues are in the dark ages. In many ways, the way doctors hand medications out without the slightest provocation is more barbaric than 18th century bloodletting. Contemporary medicine is stuck in a perverse and naive framework of cartesian dualism that is so reductionist it cannot see the forest through the trees.
I agree with this premise. People have been eating fresh fruit for millenia and the epidemic of insulin resistance and diabetes and other chronic illnesses did escalate until after the industrial revolution and advances in corporate farming. Look at photos of the 19th century and prior and you see that the only obese people were kings and queens and affluent urban populations. I have an even simpler rule than trying to analyze what carbs I'm eating....I ONLY eat fresh whole foods direct from local farmers or grown in my backyard garden. Nothing from the center aisles of big groceries. Nothing with a food nutrition label on it.
So what does low carb have to do with this video? You've show a bunch of studies that says fruit is better than a SAD diet which no low carber disagrees with but the title is low carb fallacy?
@@Medcram I know there are people who say that fruit is just as bad as sugar which I agree needs context. However a well-formulated low carb diet needs no carbs and adding fiber to distressed bowels often make things worse. You haven't presented evidence comparing LC and LC + fruit so this isn't about LC. The title is just dragging us through the mud for whatever reason.
Fact, sugar is a carbohydrate. Fructose is no good at all to the human body. It give you fatty liver, gains weight, rots teeth and generally does you no good at all. That's the position of a low carber. Glucose, in low amounts are required in the blood and brain, but fructose us no good at all.
Lots of good info, but some things missing as well. Apples are one of the highest-fiber fruits, so no question that 2 apples are better than a Coke. Many people extrapolate that conclusion to believe that any fruit and any amount of fruit is healthy. Many of the sweetest fruits eaten in excess can cause fatty liver and high uric acid problems. Our bodies are adapted to use fruit that was historically only available in the Fall to trigger fat storage to survive the food scarcity of Winter. We no longer have Winter food scarcity and now fruit fructose is a major source of fatty liver disease and obesity, even in young people. You should do a talk interview here with Dr. Richard Johnson at the University of Denver. Cheers
@@Medcram so we should eat fruit as they appear in their season, perhaps. Here in Tasmania we have berries, cherries and stone fruit in December, January, then apples and grapes around April, May. Winter hits and days get very short. Of course we can buy fruits from all over the world at any time but I'm wondering if we should stay regional and seasonal for the best health.
@@skippy6462 Might I suggest you read both The Obesity Code & The Diabetes Code by Dr. Jason Fung to get the COMPLETE picture about fruit. Yes the fiber is beneficial, however it can still cause IR problems if one eats too much of it. Some berries are better, but a diet high in high glycemic fruit, any fructose, is going to cause some degree of insulin resistance.
@@DMWB57 Just for your general consideration and not necessarily specific to the statement about insulin resistance from "to much fruit" consumption per se, Red Pen Reviews, the service which scrutinizes the evidentiary content claims of various books, gave this particular book a 60% rating, which is not poor but not great either. From the last line of the review summary: "Bottom Line: Following the TOC program will likely result in weight loss and improved health, but the book’s scientific claims should be read with skepticism."
It appears that apple sauce DOES have a higher insulin spike than a whole apple (but less than apple juice, of course). Does this mean adding fruit into the blender to make a smoothie is a bad idea because it breaks down those sources of fiber in whole fruit?
I drink a smoothie daily with lots(!!) of flax seeds and kale/spinach added. I bet this counter-balances the breakdown of the fiber in the small amount of added fruit. So --- it depends on what's in your smoothie :-)
It seems to mitigate the effects. If you look at the randomized controlled trial that we showed in our video fiber from Di. It was the best, but fiber from supplement was a close second.
Nobody in the low carb scene considers a fruit "the same" as refined fructose. Fiber content is ALWAYS factored in, and when specifically talking about fruit, issue is usually taken with the fact that all of these fruits are bred to be larger and sweeter - they aren't "natural" apples, and thus you can't intuit this topic via their historic consumption.
Wha??? There's a BUNCH of LC people (even popular teachers) that say the 2 are the same. I've had these people tell me for many years "sugar is sugar" "doesn't matter where it comes from" "Fruit is just a sugar bomb". As for your other things these scammers say: " fruits are bred to be larger and sweeter" That doesn't matter. They're also bred to be the size preferred for eating, and for growing, transport, and storage. It doesn't change the body reacting positively with them. And by 'sweeter', are you saying it has "too much sugar"? Well I see in the fruitarian community that they still often don't get enough calories. And when people DO get enough calories, they stop eating. No fruitarian gets fat or even gets diabetes. So there is no problem.(as you can see from me who's been on a high-fruit diet for 28 years)
@@GaryHighFruit A glance at your TH-cam channel shows you're focused on crazy outliers like Frank Tufano. These are the convenient low hanging fruits (pun) that the vegan activists target. Try Thomas DeLaur, arguably THE biggest "Keto influencer" out there. In this video at 5:00 he summarizes whether he thinks the fructose is fruit is an equal concern (spoiler: it isn't) - and at 7:30 he starts focusing on fiber. th-cam.com/video/fuFoPBJG2U4/w-d-xo.html A good channel with SCIENTISTS talking along low carb subjects is Low Carb Down Under. Stop getting led by the nose by vegan activists presenting the weakest possible people as "the low carb scene."
So fibre and polyphenols, among other supposedly unknown compounds, are a large part of what makes fruits better than the juices. I wonder what is missing with vitamin e that shows no benefit/ harm of their supplementation in many studies. Also, could you make a video on omega3 supplements vs omega 3 from fish. Or fish vs vegan diet. Thank you so much for precious knowledge. I am sharing the link to this video on a similar video made by a popular indian youtuber dhruv rathee hoping that your evidence based video would have an even wider viewership. Thank you!
Long chain omega 3s (DHA and EPA) originate in algae, not fish: Title: Omega-3 Fatty Acids: An Essential Contribution Journal: Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS), National Institutes of Health (NIH) FISH OIL vs ALGAE OIL OMEGA 3: Title: Omega-3 Fatty Acid Concentrates: Comparison of Two Different Omega-3 Sources Journal: Lipids in Health and Disease Title: A Single Dose of Fish Oil Increases Omega-3 Levels and Does Not Affect Platelets in Humans Journal: The Journal of Nutrition No difference in bioavailability: Title: The bioavailability of DHA from algal oil, but not from fish oil, is significantly improved in healthy adults: a randomized trial Journal: The Journal of Nutrition Title: Bioavailability of marine n-3 fatty acid formulations Journal: Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids No difference in viability and cell proliferation of Caco-2 cells: Title: Bioconversion of ALA to EPA, but not DHA, is Inversely Related to DHA Status in Men Journal: The Journal of Lipid Research
MedCram is a good channel, but this video is blatantly wrong. Slowing absorption with fiber doesn't reduce the total load placed on the body by the sugar content of the apple or piece of fruit. In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
Whole Fruits are clearly better than the juice from a fruit, but both contain fructose, which must be handled at the liver. It is a direct contributor to NAFLD, which afflicts 30-50% of the population, many who do not show obvious signs of obesity. Not all sugars are the same If you’re comparing calories, the two main types of dietary sugars - fructose and glucose - are exactly the same. (Sucrose, or table sugar, is a combination of fructose and glucose.) What makes fructose more harmful is the way the body metabolizes it. Unlike glucose, which is used by cells as an energy source, fructose is metabolized by the liver, where it promotes the synthesis of fat. In fact, some experts believe our bodies are not designed to handle this excess fructose. “In evolutionary history, it was a rare treat, where you might find fructose in a beehive or seasonal fruit, serving as an energy source when food was scarce. Now those with first-world diets have a constant onslaught, and our bodies have not caught up,” says Magee. Today, HFCS, which is made from cornstarch and contains approximately 55% fructose, is found in most processed foods and sugary drinks. Sugar can also come in other disguised forms, such as cane sugar or beet sugar (high in sucrose) and agave nectar and honey (high in fructose). And our diets reflect this change: some 200 years ago, Americans ate about two pounds of sugar a year. Today, Americans consume on average greater than 120 pounds of sugar a year. Some of this increase is likely due to the fact that, as food makers began to take fat out of their products to respond to the rise in heart disease in the early '90s, they added more sugar to improve the flavor of what was now “fat free.” “Ironically, replacing fat in food with sugar just leads to fat in the liver and in circulation - none of which is good for your heart,” says Magee.
I haven't heard anyone dispute that if packaged in fiber, it spikes glucose less. Does not mean it's a great idea to eat. Modern apples have a very low nutriontal benefit compared to the amount of sugar. The association with less diabetes, eating more fruit is bogus. These people ate a lot of other different things than fruit.
He was talking about sugar one minute and fructose the next. He never mentioned glucose. Glucose it totally natural, we can make it ourselves. Fructose, is a toxin.
It's a pity you don't take your own advice. Look at all factors. You didn't mention the phytotoxins, carcinogens, anti-nutrients, and oxalates that also comprise the whole fruit consumed. It is also noteworthy that hba1c assays do NOT register fructose glycation, and glycation occurs whether the fructose is released fast OR slow
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
@@contrarian604 That’s the beauty of research a lot changes in 8 years. Imagine if we just stopped in all health studies and research 8 years ago where we would be. I always ask people to point out someone who has health issues from eating Whole Foods such a fruits and vegetables… show me the cause and effect where they become diabetic or obese…
@@dmcentYT You have to be a fool to think that any amount of research will change basic body biochemistry and causes of mortality. I'll eat whole (or even blended) veggies any day, as they are low in sugar, but two years ago I stopped eating fruit on a regular basis, as the fructose is a direct attack on the liver and contributes to the lifetime load placed on the pancreas. A recent study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism by researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham found that nearly 40 percent of young adults without diabetes experience insulin resistance, a condition in which the body does not respond correctly to insulin and is unable to use glucose from the blood for energy. His team investigated data collected from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, in a national sample of more than 6,000 young American adults. They found that four in 10 adults, ages 18-44, have insulin resistance, and those with insulin resistance have a significantly higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors such as obesity, high blood pressure, poor physical activity and high cholesterol. “We traditionally think of young adults as being in good health, but our findings show that this is not necessarily true,” Parcha said. Previously, insulin resistance was thought to be a condition only of those who were obese; but since 50 percent of participants with insulin resistance were not obese, this may not be the case. I have nothing to gain from encouraging or dissuading people from eating fruit. But if Fruit has fructose, arguably half the population is insulin-resistant, and fructose and alcohol must be processed at the liver, then shouldn't we be restricting the intake of fruit, and not encouraging its wholesale consumption as no different than whole vegetables? As they are clearly not equivalent in health benefits and as a contributor to diabetes.
@@dmcentYT Depending on the website, 20-50% of the population has Non alcoholic fatty liver disease. The liver foundation website says: Facts at-a-Glance About 100 million individuals in the United States are estimated to have Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD), is the most common form of liver disease in children and has more than doubled over the past 20 years. Fruit is natural, but whether consumed whole or as a juice, still is composed of fructose, a direct toxin that must be dealt with by the liver. The very definition of NAFLD is that one has a fatty liver, but does not consume alcohol. Fruit, in addition to consumption of processed foods made with high -fructose corn syrup (promoted by the corn lobby), are directly contributors to NAFLD. Consume at your own discretion.
Used to drink apple juice diluted with water all the time and thought I was doing something good for my body. Well I got diabetes! Now I‘ve been in reversal for 4 years due to a low carb lifestyle
@@iCristalrose I don‘t eat sugar and have no desire to ever eat it again. My body does handle the carbs from veg and berries very well and I‘ve now had an a1c in the low 5s for many years without any meds. Is my diabetes reversed? It sure looks to me this way...
@@iCristalrose meddical experts call it reversed if your a1c is in the non diabetic range without meds for over a year. Google it. So I have reversed it. The question is whether it can be completely healed...
In my 20’s I Got up too 91 kilos . I decided upon a whim - to become a fruitarian for 1 year . Absolutely nothing else but living fruit …. No tea coffee or anything else no exception’s. From 1 Xmas to the next . I had never felt so physically healthy in all my life . That being said . As the weight fell away , I had to eat increasing volumes of fruit . I never needed to drink water …and I rarely needed to have a crap . My weight dropped down to 59 kg by the next Xmas …..at witch point , I slowly started integrating other foods back into my diet . That was 30 years ago . I kept my weight at between 72 and 78 kilos since that time . During that year I stopped taking The ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER MEDICATION . And the antidepressant. What did not change / I still had bouts of depression . The dyslexia stayed . The attention deficit disorder stayed . To combat those things , I trained martial arts 3 days a week. It helped a little . Unfortunately 30 years later , I’m still wrestling with the same things . 🤷 One of my cousins tried becoming fruitarian , however , it didn’t suit her body . She started feeling sick after a few days , so she stopped 🤷 . If I’d had a dollar form everyone along the way who tolled me it was impossible 🤦🏻♀️ you can’t do it , Blah Blah Blah / I could have bought a new car . Rubbish people said …. But but but … you have to have xyz protein / iron / ect ect ect 🤷 I did it - regardless of their opinions . I don’t mind telling you , I have Never been able to replicate the drive and commitment I had during that time . If my girlfriend back then / my wife today , hadn’t seen it herself . No one would believe it happened . Take care of yourself and each other . 👣🦘👍
I assume you meant "Trolled" 😄 not "Tolled". I even SAW it as trolled because I'm used to seeing that word in the high-fruit-community. "she tried becoming fruitarian , ... She started feeling sick after a few days " When that occurs, it's from detox (or she just got a cold etc by coincidence). With detox, the body starts to REMOVE 'sickness' from the body. And as the toxins get into your circulation, it's nearly the same feeling as being sick. I've had this experience. It explains many of the ex-vegan stories on the internet. But they're not aware fo this phenomenon, and just blame the diet.
Interesting. I'm the opposite, 95% carnivore, and I can tell you the symptoms that you couldn't get rid of absolutely have disappeared by a carnivore diet. The main thing with fructose is that it is only metabolized through the liver, which wasn't discussed here at all. Chances are many of these people eating so much fruit have fatty livers that they just don't know about, unless they are highly active and burn through it quickly. If not, your body is storing that. The only fruit I do eat is avocados for the healthy fats, and low carb content, and occasionally some berries, mainly blackberries because of the low oxalate content.
Great information, I loved this, I am 64, very athletic, and I watch a ton of Peter Attia and his connections. It's very funny how pro and amateur cyclists on TH-cam know the importance of fruit. Some of these guys eat 30 bananas a day and are slim and trim. I have always noticed that eating 5 to 7 pieces of fruit a day, I would recover and just plainly have more energy, I have tried many ways of eating, and I believe, mainly plant based is the way to go. I was diagnosed with thrombocytopenia 15 months ago. Which is an auto immune disease, also hypothyroidism, since I was 39. They say there is no cure, I believe that is bull, I believe in the law of cause and effect. Cheers, ps. I have done the immune therapy and steroid treatment for 4 days. No results. The thing that irks me is that I cannot exercise even in zone 2 or lift from what I have found out. That sucks.
If you watch a ton of Peter Attia, maybe ask him what you think of your fruit habit. Carbs are pro-inflammatory, why do you think you have an auto-immune disease? You can gorge on fruit when you're young and the body hasn't had a chance to break down from the chronic intake of fruit. You do realize that Steve Jobs ate a ton of apples, was a borderline fruitarian, and died prematurely of pancreatic disease, right? Slowing absorption with fiber doesn't reduce the total load placed on the body by the sugar content of the apple or piece of fruit. In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
@Patrick YVR it's funny you said that, I watched a couple of the ketogenic movies on the weekend. I always thought Tim Noakes was a quack and all the ketogenic people. I was eating vegan for a couple of years and felt fantastic. So what is your opinion on Caldwell Esselstyn and the vegan there. When I did eat vegan, I did feel like a machine when cycling, at my very physically demanding job. I am trying the low-carb, high approach I started yesterday. I will eat a little brown rice. I quit drinking beer a year and a half ago and dropped 15 to 20 lbs. So, the whole insulin resistance theory makes total sense to me now. I am not so worried about me, I have great discipline. That wife of mine is a different story. She needs to drop about 40 lbs. I am very excited about this . I get blood work done in mid-July again. Thx for the conversation.
@@duanefrench3500 Listening to an interview from David Perlmutter, NYT bestseller and author regarding Uric Acid, fructose directly feeds into uric acid, and signals that the body should make fat (presumably to prepare for winter and food scarcity). As 50% of the population now has NA fatty liver disease and probably half of the remaining 50% are either diabetic or pre-diabetic, the vast majority of the population should be dissuaded from consuming fruit. I consumed fruit regularly for enough decades. I now view it no differently than a treat, as dessert. Not for regular consumption, regardless of the presence of fiber, or not.
@Patrick YVR my problems, with auto immune disease I believe was so much grain, I ate oatmeal for breakfast for basically for 35 years straight. My wife would say to me, "You thrive on bread honey. I quit eating dairy in 2017. I watched that neurologist interview Tim Noakes. The movie " Cereal Killers" and The One with Australian guy cycling around his country. Today, I feel great. Not peeing nearly as much as normal. I am going after work to practice golf and some strength training later. But 0 weakness of any kind, and not sleepy. I am very pleased.
Appreciate this important info as I was aware of the "fruit has too much sugar" scare that the low carb guys state. I do lower carb and healthy fats now bur will also increase the fruit.
Increasing your fruit intake would be a mistake. The information in this video is biased. I have a friend who just got back from the Phillipines to settle her mum's estate. All her relatives were excessively obese, and asked her if she had cancer because she is of a normal body weight (105-110lbs). Diabetes is rampant in the Phillipines, the information in this video is misleading. Of course whole fruit is better than fruit juice, but regardless, the fruit has fructose, which is sugar that must be processed at the liver. BAD ADVICE being used to justify increased consumption of fruit.
Slowing absorption with fiber doesn't reduce the total load placed on the body by the sugar content of the apple or piece of fruit. In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
You don’t eat fruit for low carbs, you eat fruit for it’s nutrients. Most fruit has a plenty of fiber, which reduces it’s glycemic index. The soda has no nutrients, and has a very high glycemic index.
Thanks for the video! However the point of low-carb dieting is not to have insulin spikes which cause a cascade of effects that are deleterious to health such as fat up take into the body and inflammation. Fruit and juice, verified in your very presentation, both cause similar glucose levels. The since juice cause a quicker, more aggressive insulin response, glucose is metabolized quicker. Regarding fruit, “slower” isn’t better as prolonged durations of elevated insulin leaves the window open for the possibility of more fat-up take into one’s body form one’s diet. Unchecked, this leads to insulin resistance where one’s body is adapted to high glucose and insulin levels. This combined with fatty foods is the recipe for the lifestyle health crisis the world is suffering. Low-carb dieters know that the ultimate culprit to poor health is insulin and insulin resistance and we attempt to avoid anything that tiggers an insulin response and it’s associated harms. Love you channel!
Thanks for the comment. I would point out, however that if it were the case that eating fruits would cause elevated glucose and therefore insulin and lead to fat absorption, and therefore diabetes, this doesn’t seem to hold up in the long term observational studies which are associated with a reduction in diabetes. There may be more variables in the equation. Things like polyphenols fiber, they may also affect the incidence of diabetes negatively.
@@Medcram Might I suggest you read The Diabetes Code & The Diabetes Code by Dr. Jason Fung? Observational studies is what you're hanging your hat on Doctor?
@@MedcramAlso bear in mind that people who start eating fruit to fix diabetes will most likely be altering other health factors, and taking better care of themselves... thus confounding the outcome in favour of fruit being the main reason for success
What if liver glycogen stores are already full? Then, all fructose should be counter-productive, regardless of the speed of digestion. There should be a limit to even "whole apple" fructose, and the limit is going to depend on the rest of the diet, activity levels, and the timing of it all.
Pfizer scientists are working to develop a novel medicine that blocks fructose metabolism to help prevent the buildup of fat, or steatosis, in the liver. When the liver has too much fat, it can lead to a more serious condition, known as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which causes scarring and eventually liver failure. “Steatosis, or fatty liver, is the very first step in a bad journey,” says Thomas Magee, Senior Director, Internal Medicine Research Unit, based at Pfizer’s Kendall Square, Cambridge research site. Magee is a medicinal chemist who was the project leader during the discovery and early development of a fructose metabolizing compound that is currently being evaluated in clinical trials. Not all sugars are the same If you’re comparing calories, the two main types of dietary sugars - fructose and glucose - are exactly the same. (Sucrose, or table sugar, is a combination of fructose and glucose.) What makes fructose more harmful is the way the body metabolizes it. Unlike glucose, which is used by cells as an energy source, fructose is metabolized by the liver, where it promotes the synthesis of fat. In fact, some experts believe our bodies are not designed to handle this excess fructose. “In evolutionary history, it was a rare treat, where you might find fructose in a beehive or seasonal fruit, serving as an energy source when food was scarce. Now those with first-world diets have a constant onslaught, and our bodies have not caught up,” says Magee. Today, HFCS, which is made from cornstarch and contains approximately 55% fructose, is found in most processed foods and sugary drinks. Sugar can also come in other disguised forms, such as cane sugar or beet sugar (high in sucrose) and agave nectar and honey (high in fructose). And our diets reflect this change: some 200 years ago, Americans ate about two pounds of sugar a year. Today, Americans consume on average greater than 120 pounds of sugar a year.
@@tanyasydney2235 You don't need 15 oranges at once to have excess fructose. Just one orange in the wrong context is negative. If your liver glycogen stores are full, and you digest fructose, then any amount that can't be used in real time by the liver has to be turned into visceral triglycerides that are prone to inflammation, and dampen leptin sensitivity, which can lead to a vicious cycle of excess hunger.
@@Medcram Doctor, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. What do you mean, "it MIGHT NOT be a problem IF it doesn't lead to Insulin resistance"? If it's adding to the CHO load being placed on the pancreas, or being dealt with by the liver, then how can it NOT be contributing to insulin resistance? Univ of Alabama Birmingham study showed that 40% young adults (under 45) are insulin resistant. Previously, insulin resistance was thought to be a condition only of those who were obese; but since 50 percent of participants with insulin resistance were not obese, this may not be the case. “As health care providers, we often consider screening for insulin resistance and cardiovascular diseases only in those who are obese,” said Pankaj Arora, M.D., senior author of the study and physician-scientist in UAB’s Division of Cardiovascular Disease. This means that we will be missing out on providing highly effective, preventive and therapeutic strategies to young adults who could be at risk of fatal cardiovascular events later in life.” Arora emphasizes that, although young adults can sometimes be overlooked when it comes to screening for diabetes and cardiovascular and cardiometabolic diseases, these screenings could easily be implemented in clinics across the country in an effort to prevent deaths caused by these diseases. “This means that we will be missing out on providing highly effective, preventive and therapeutic strategies to young adults who could be at risk of fatal cardiovascular events later in life.” Endocrinologist (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) Professor Katherine Samaras believes restricting carbohydrates and lowering calories is key for diabetics. "in my view, it seems counterintuitive to be asking people who have a deficiency in insulin, an inability to produce enough insulin, a requirement for medications to help them make insulin, to be eating so much carbohydrate. A meal that is relatively high in CHO can often produce very high glucose levels, and this is a problem." Professor Samaras, has been working with the (Aussie) federal government to lower the carbohydrate level of hospital food Interviewer: "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, And so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts.The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
It reminds me of the THC fallacy. We all know that smoking marijuana produces a different buzz than smoking hashish, yet it is the THC that is the intoxicant. Weed simply has different add on compounds than hashish and vice versa. I figure it out as a teenager.
Great video. I don't understand the issue with smoothies though. Dr Devor implied that a smoothie is the same as fruit juice, but the graph shows that whole fruit and apple sauce are basically equal. When I make a smoothie, it has the same consistency as applesauce.
Dr. Seheult: thank you for this wonderful presentation. I have a question re: the blending of vegetables and fruits together in smoothies, preserving the fiber in the smoothie. I get that question from patients and in the Latino community there’s a big tendency to consume them. I heard you said fruit juices and smoothies in this presentation but can you clarify in the case of fruits and veggies and the effects of the blades on the fiber lattice? Thanks so much. 🙏🏼
Yes! I asked the same question above. I'm very interested in the blending of fruit too. It appears the apple sauce had a slightly higher response than whole apple.
Blending can reduce fibre. A high powered machine can be more of a problem sugar intake wise over a lower powered one. Would still like to hear about nectar and smoothies over juices.
It seems from the data that blending does take away the fiber. I think this is an interesting topic, and one that I need to research more before I give a clear answer on it. But it seems as though adding fiber to a smoothie is better than juicing, but eating the whole fruit is probably better than the smoothie.
@@Medcram Thank you so much for your reply Dr. Seheult. I agree with you and I have also looked in the available literature and don't seem to find much information on the effect of blending. I'll share with you a typical recipe provided by patients: green apple, celery, kale, pineapple, leaving the pulp in the drink. I am reluctant to give a definite answer as I don't want to discourage them from having their veggies. I hope there are more studies set up to address this issue. From a big fan in the nursing profession. Muchas gracias!!!
I really enjoyed this. It was easy to understand. Also it’s common sense. Something that God made that has vitamins and minerals is going to be better for you than a sugary drink without any nutritional value.
Everyone makes fantastical claims about the nutrient value of fruit. Please educate yourself before being deluded with the company line that fruits are full of nutrients. In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
Just because "god made it,", doesn't mean fruits can be consumed without any restriction. Fruits only have water soluble vitamins, primarily Vitamin C. Minerals are only present in trace amounts, typically in the skin (where pesticides would be located), as minerals aren't typically water-soluble either. Depending on the website, 20-50% of the population has Non alcoholic fatty liver disease. The liver foundation website says: Facts at-a-Glance About 100 million individuals in the United States are estimated to have Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD), is the most common form of liver disease in children and has more than doubled over the past 20 years. Fruit is natural, but whether consumed whole or as a juice, still is composed of fructose, a direct toxin that must be dealt with by the liver. Consume at your own discretion.
The fruit we eat today is nothing like it was in its natural state. All the fruit we eat today has gone through centuries of change to make them juicier and sweeter. Don't get all your information from one source. He started the whole presentation to debunk the low-carb diet. Once your journey is planned out, you can talk your way into it with ease. Bottom line: does your glucose spike or not after eating certain fruits? And, can you get the same nutrients from other foods that do not spike your blood glucose?
@@Medcram I particularly appreciate the way you cite verifiable sources and breakdown the information for those of us who are not specialists in any relevant field.
This is not a "low-carb fallacy", real low-carb people know and highlight this, I remember a study on mice chow processing that showed weight gain in the processed group (I think it was blended) despite being isocaloric.
MedCram is a good channel, but this video is blatantly wrong. Slowing absorption with fiber doesn't reduce the total load placed on the body by the sugar content of the apple or piece of fruit. In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
For elderly people with dentures that rely on blended fruit and vegetable smoothies, are they more prone to diabetes since the cell walls would be broken down in a blender? If so, what is your recommended fruit and vegetable intake method among elderly folks? Thank for this video!!
@@wordzmyth yeah I think finely chopped might make it easier to chew with dentures. Actually when you mentioned the digestion issue, fermentation may make the nutrients even more bioavailable during digestion since the microbes had a chance to break down the food before reaching the intestine. So maybe one of the solution for elderly with dentures is fermented finely chopped fruits and vegetables.
Blenderizing fruits does tend to cause the natural sugar from them to go more quickly into the bloodstream, increasing undesirable higher insulin reaction. The answer is, drink a tablespoon of Organic Apple Cider Vinegar in a glass of water, or the juice of half a lemon sweetened with a bit of honey, Stevia powder, or Monkfruit granules in water. The ACIDITY of lemon juice or Apple Cider Vinegar slows down the spiking of insulin by around one third. It's the sudden, quick spiking of blood sugar that you want to avoid! PS I would avoid eating ripe bananas. The sugar content is very high. Only eat green or greenish ones if you wish to stabilize your blood sugar. Raisins are particularly bad too for giving a rapid insulin spike. Prunes, however, have an insulin reaction that is low.
The problem is the fruits of today are not the same as what they used to be decades ago. They are Genetically Modified to be too sweet than what they should have been in nature.
Oh, man, I've seen this post so many times over the years. So much fallacy. In the end, it's about how many calories you ate. There's people doing great on all fruit. They only eat fruit, and their calories don't usually go sky high like you're suggesting
@@GaryHighFruit CICO is wrong, as are you. You can stay lean while eating a bunch of fruit, yet still damage your body. You’re not a chimpanzee, so quit trying to act like one.
@@GaryHighFruitfruits today are not the same as they were 200 years ago. They are all GMO! Apples, small, hard, bitter. Banana, small, full of seeds. Watermelon, didn't exist. Tomato, the size of a grape. They have been modified to be bigger, sweeter, and have smaller seeds or to look and taste totally different. About as "natural" as eating seed oils loaded with polyunsaturated fats loaded with omaga 6. Eating only fruit? How can a human survive eating only fruit? No protein! No health fats! Perfect storm for diabetes, heart disease, kidney failure, stroke, and dementia.
The fruits I find in stores where I am are unripe & tasteless, let alone not sweet! How I long for fruits fresh off trees that are succulent, juicy & oh so sweet!
Handy information thankyou. Quite a few 'experts' in utube land telling us even to avoid some vegetables incl potatoes as well because they convert to sugar.
By my observation it has quite same effect. If I eat apples and check my blood sugar after that - it goes up. Maybe little slower than if I eat pure table sugar (I did not test it because I do not eat it anymore). But sugar is sugar.
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
Of course fiber buffers sugar. But speaking as someone who consumes no fiber, sugar, processed food, suppliments or anything except meat, water, salt and some dairy, I can confirm this healthy human diet will return all health markers to absolute optimin. Any consumed sugar is toxic to humanity.
Interesting. Many people in the low-carb community say that what I have said is not news. They don’t believe that people like you in their community exist so I’m glad that you’ve made this comment.
Friend of mine gave herself scurvy a while back by staying on Atkins induction for 6 months and not including anything other than meat and cheese. How are you managing this without supplements?
@@marcialitt4431 I have never heard of a person on a carnivour diet getting scurvey. There are many credible carnivour Doctors who regularly podcast on TH-cam who say the same. Such as Dr. Ken Berry, Dr. Anthony Chaffee, Dr. Shawn Baker. I remember seeing a podcast on the subject that pointed out ships officers and captins in days of old rarely got scurvey, just the sailors who were served a terrible diet staple of ships biscuits often full of weavels. (The protien rich weavels may have been the best part.😄). I note you said Atkins diet. The Atkinson diet is not carnivour. It includes a lot of vegitable and will likley not induce ketosis. Ketosis requires little or no cards. There can be many reasons for a vitiman c deficiency. There are many ways to get vitiman c into the body including things like oranges but should not be necessary on carnivour diet. Meat contains vitiman c and the vitiman / mineral requirements differ with different diets.
No, sugar is not necessarily, toxic, and yes, this is coming from a carnivore dieter. You can eat glucose, it's not toxic in healthy people, it's just that it is not optimal. History clearly shows societies not getting sick when they add starches to their diets. It's when they add extracted fructose and honey is when they get sick. Protein and fat are optimal. Fructose is only toxic if you eat it all the time. Fructose is a survival nutrient, without it, we would have never survived. It helped us gain fat to survive the annual winter famine our ancestors has do face, but fructose is toxic if you eat it all the time...
Excellent clear presentation. From a more general perspective I would add that the human packaging of the food is also relevant. I don't consider an organic fruit or vegetable to be "organic" if it is packaged in plastic, the chemicals in which can leach into the fruit or vegetable whether while packaged or after that plastic is put in a landfill.
From what I've seen with my own eyes testing myself with a glucose meter. From what I've seen of others like "Beat Diabetes" on TH-cam, Whole fruit ends up being almost as bad as juiced fruit and just as bad if not worse than candy bars. I've done Beat Diabetes' test with two Hershey's bars verses a banana of similar weight. For someone with any bit of insulin resistance, the banana with its sugar so called trapped in its fiberous cells actually raises sugar higher and longer than two highly processed Hershey milk chocolate bars! So no. Sugary fruit even whole with the pulp and fiber is not healthy for anyone with insulin resistance which is estimated to be 1/3rd of the adult population in the United States. (And yes I understand one of the studies showed hypoglycemia from the fruit juice which was slightly less than the apple sauce and less than the whole apple. But the problem was most of the subjects peaked at 95?!?! I certainly peak at 95 eating pork rinds, or ice cubes but if I ate a decent sized apple, my blood sugar would be 160 to 170 and it would take two or three hours depending on how active I was to get back down to 95. I'm not even a diabetic. I'm just a middle aged man with and an A1C in the mid 5's with a bit of insulin resistance. The test results look like the people were very young athletic college age kids.. I'm sure whole fruit is certainly more healthy for them than juice but I don't think either are healthy for the insulin resistant person.)
Measuring blood glucose after a meal (as shown in the rct study) is not the definitive test for diabetes. Notice that the trial showed the same blood glucose initially. Insulin resistance occurs beneath the surface and 90 minutes later with lower blood sugars actually. It’s not as simple as how high blood sugar is after a certain meal. Look at the study again.
Blood glucose in the ranges certainly contributes to heart disease. It's often overlooked that not only chronically high insulin makes you sick, but also transient high glucose causes immediate damage that needs to be repaired and that repair mechanism is weakened with age. But this is a biased pro cereal channel, so they don't focus on this.
@@tanyasydney2235 Yes but that would be the saturated fat sequestered around your midsection and your liver not the saturated fat you are eating per se. Insulin resistance starts when your body reaches it's genetic limit of sequestered fat. It is why some people can develop insulin resistance being only 10 pounds overweight while others can be 40 pounds overweight but still have good insulin sensitivity.
Dr Seheult, thank you as always for excellent information. Is the general conclusion that eating whole fruits healthier than eating free sugar, very likely. But we should understand why this might be true and by what mechanism. Unfortunately, with the research discussed here it is difficult to assess what is the mechanism. And the results are inconsistent. It would have been better if you assessed both the pros and cons of the results, not just the pros. One reference here is clearly biased by an author from the Avocado Board. Too many confounders going on here. I can only give a few examples. For much of this there should be clarification regarding fructose and glucose; very different metabolically. You didn't mention some of the results not in agreement. At 13:26 you say why would the "insulin be higher and it's because there is a huge bolus of sugar", but in fact as shown all sources had the same "huge bolus" at 30 minutes. No difference. Where is the protective slowing effect of all the fiber? The research and plot is, by the way, from a 1977 paper in Lancet. A reasonable alternative interpretation is that the whole apple created the same large bolus and then kept the glucose higher for longer. Also note that insulin is virtually the same for all three once you get to 90 minutes. Why we are to believe that there is a postprandial hypoglycemia that is of concern caused by high insulin when the insulin levels are the same? A graph like this needs to show the 95% confidence limits. The 90 minute glucose is 50, not 45-50, and it would be interesting to know if that data point is a repeatable value considering it looks out of line with the rest of the curve. At 14:38 you switch to fructose, whereas the previous data is only about glucose. Fructose is an entirely different process that occurs within the liver, doesn't raise blood glucose levels and doesn't raise insulin. At 14:58 that study seems pretty weak. It is an association only. There is no data on the amount of sugar consumed. How to explain that the increase of three servings per day of total fruit and vegetable consumption did not have an association? Note from plots at 19:05, there was no difference between supplemented fiber and high fiber from diet. That discounts the concept that the whole fruit plant fiber is protecting us from a bolus of sugar. The supplemented fiber is working just as well. Note also that there was no difference in insulin response for the three diets. From the paper "Postprandial insulin increased after all of the meal tests, but there was no difference between their iAUCs." The other studies also address supplemented fiber (unripe bananas). Even the conclusion from Devor talks about the "natural sugar found in whole fruits is bound to fiber". But supplemented fiber is not bound to sugars. An association between "eating more whole fruits" should also be considered in the context of what is not being eaten. The health benefit could be because they are eating less fried food and seed oils.
This is great information. I've suspected it for a while. I don't blend a smoothie to death - I just stir it. But, I know people who eat a lot fruit who are still thin. Look at Jack LeLane. He ate a lot of fruit - whole fruit.
MedCram is a good channel, but this video is blatantly wrong. Slowing absorption with fiber doesn't reduce the total load placed on the body by the sugar content of the apple or piece of fruit. In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
Doc, you are already headed in the wrong direction, respectfully. The fiberbin fruit is great if we are talking "gut".. meaning that a whole fruit is better than "juicing". Also there are good components of fruits and vegetables, yes..such as beta carotene. However, there are c a few problems. #1...today's grocery store fruit is "Franken fruit" bred and modified to be full of way more sugar. #2...the liver processes fructose the same way it processes alcohol and even more shocking...will NOT register on an HBA1C. I used to be T2 diabetic. I reversed my diabetes going low carb and even zero carb, which I eat about 70% of the time. I know diabetics who claim they eat so healthy that they have 3 or 4 fruits a day...well, they all still use insulin. Others who have followed my way of eating in my small town ALL REVERSED their diabetes and take no insulin. In addition, our HBA1C all improved from the 11's, 7's or so down to 5.1 or 4.8...whole fruit is still much better than juice or soda...bit in the end it boils down to the same end result. I've come off of an embarrassing 12 prescribed meds at age 51 and reversed not only diabetes and fibromyalgia and hypothyroidism but lymphedema. Your key words here doc..."whole, NATURAL fruit"...the problem is our fruits are nothing today like they were during our human evolution. An apple, better than a snickers bar but still not ideal. I avoid fruit because I test my blood sugar 4 times a day and see how even a fibrous whole apple spikes it. I love your channel...ya just got this wrong. Also...my IBD and reflux are back instantly with fruit or most veggies.
MedCram is a good channel, but this video is blatantly wrong. Slowing absorption with fiber doesn't reduce the total load placed on the body by the sugar content of the apple or piece of fruit. In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
👍👍👍MEDCRAM IS THE BEST, JUST NO OTHERS CAN COME CLOSE. 🥰 Dr Seheult, please also do a video on calcium supplement that is forever popular over the counter, added in soy milk, beverages, shelf foods & so very often prescribed or advised by family doctors.
MedCram is a good channel, but this video is blatantly wrong. Slowing absorption with fiber doesn't reduce the total load placed on the body by the sugar content of the apple or piece of fruit. In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views) Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question, "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?' Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with. In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes." end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
Join us at medcram.com for more continuing medical education videos.
Here's a study showing NO association between fruit consumption and Non alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7512147/
Here’s more information on juices, smoothies and whole fruit:
www.diabetes.org.uk/guide-to-diabetes/enjoy-food/what-to-drink-with-diabetes/fruit-juices-and-smoothies
Interesting link but it also reads like people are only planning to buy premade "smoothies":
"Fruit juice and smoothies, on the other hand, have most of the fibre (roughage) removed when they are made and it’s very easy to drink large quantities in a short space of time"
Um....I have smoothie every day using whole plant foods and my breakfast comes in right about 35 grams of fiber and right at 956 calories. I wouldn't just blindly say that smoothies have most of the fiber removed. Store bought pre-packaged ones, yeap. Jamba Juice where you can watch them throw in whole fruit, veg, greens, and flax (assuming you don't get a smoothie that is just juice and ice) or making at home - great way to go and not fiber removed or even low in fiber if you are using the right produce.
My breakfast smoothie has more fiber than the average person gets in two days.
So according to the image at 10:30, This scientist is saying that whole fruits due to there chemical structure don't rise your glucose as much as previously thought?
if I have this correct, than how do you explain the rapid rise in glucose we see in thousands of people who are now using continuous glucose monitors ( CGM) and see exactly that !
@@flolou8496
The information in this video is misleading at best. Only a fool would argue that whole fruit (eaten whole) is not better than the juice from the fruit. Yes, the glycemic index and insulin spike of any liquid sugar will be far worse than consuming the fruit in whole, but that entirely misses the point. The point being that most fruits have been bioengineered by selective breeding over time to be sweeter and larger over time, with better shelf life. That fruit was naturally intended to be consumed seasonally, not bred and sold year-round. And fruit contains fructose (arguably worse than glucose), which must be processed at the liver, contributing directly to NAFLD.
Arguably, the real point isn't whether whole fruit, or fruit juice causes the bigger insulin spike, but rather, how they contribute to the total carbohydrate (glycemic) load that must be processed by the body, which evidence now shows results in increased inflammation, and the load placed on the pancreas and liver. The glycemic spike will be softer when the whole fruit is consumed, but the total glycemic load will be the same, as it is directly and entirely correlated with the total grams of carbs being ingested.
It is this sort of mis-information or selective positioning of the information, that makes things so confusing for people without medical or scientific background, muddying the waters, or worse, giving them the justification to "consume more fruit because MedCram said it was better than drinking the juice or Coke".
Hope Kyle is okay... 🙏
@@flolou8496 In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC,
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt at 25:33 of the video
Pharmacist here. Thank you for such great info. Once again, you’ve explained it in a manner that was thorough, concise, and scientifically correct. Glad I subscribed.
My obese uncle who is a pharmacist sent me this video to convince me that low-carb was not beneficial.
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
Arguably one of the best presenters on YT. Your ability to explain complex concepts is commendable
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
@@contrarian604 : makes sense, but it all depends on the persons total diet. I know the doc on MedCram isn’t attempting to promote anything other than what is a balanced diet with a “rainbow plate”…and healthy proteins…not a diet of JUST fruits & candy. It’s a fact the intake of the multiple antioxidants in veggies & fruits are vital to healthy diet and have anti inflammatory effects. Our liver appreciates having bromelian from pineapple just to name one example!
@@birdgirl1516 "Veggies and fruit" being described in the same phrase is a misnomer. I have no issues with veggies, as they don't contain fructose. Fruits contain fructose, which is a direct toxin on the liver, regardless of the rate of absorption (as mitigated when consumed with fiber). Fructose is a direct cause of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, full-stop.
50% of the american population have full-blown NAFLD, and other populations aren't far behind. Many "healthy vegans" and otherwise non-obese folks have fatty liver, and too much visceral adipose. I was one of them until I learned of these dangers less than two years ago.
Fructose must be viewed in the same lens as alcohol, sorry. Any health benefits of fruit must be viewed on the risk-reward basis of pickling one's liver. Sorry, this is basic biochemistry of anything that must be processed at the liver.
@@contrarian604 : understand your points & position-however, think about this; anything in excess can be harmful to vital organs and every single thing in our body has a biochemistry cascade. For example, red meat is high in protein, but digesting it is definitely a taxing job for your liver. Breaking down proteins is not easy for the liver and can lead to various liver-related issues. Also, excess protein build-up in the liver can lead to fatty liver diseases that can have adverse effects on the brain and kidney. (This is for those who are extremists, in my opinion) I always believe in balance , like Mediterranean diet for example. And actually it’s not just “my belief”….Mediterranean and cultural Japanese diets are known to be some of THE HEALTHIEST
@@birdgirl1516 Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease afflicts 30-50% of the population, depending on the source of information.
Directly quoted from the Pfizer website. Pay particular attention the second last paragraph. Pfizer will be happy to design and sell us a drug to clear our excess fructose, if people are too stupid to limit their dietary intake of said poison:
If you check the labels on your favorite jarred marinara sauce, low-calorie salad dressing, or loaf of bread, you may be surprised to find that they contain added simple sugars - one of the most popular forms of which is high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a sweetener used in many processed foods.
Over the past four decades, sugar has steadily crept into American diets - a trend that can be largely attributed to the food industry’s embrace of HFCS, used to enhance the flavor of all types of products, not just sweets. And whereas dietary fat was once seen as the main public health enemy, in recent years, researchers are finding that the added sugars in our diet, mainly in the form of fructose, are contributing to high levels of obesity, diabetes, and liver disease.
To help address these growing epidemics, Pfizer scientists are working to develop a novel medicine that blocks fructose metabolism to help prevent the buildup of fat, or steatosis, in the liver. When the liver has too much fat, it can lead to a more serious condition, known as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which causes scarring and eventually liver failure. “Steatosis, or fatty liver, is the very first step in a bad journey,” says Thomas Magee, Senior Director, Internal Medicine Research Unit, based at Pfizer’s Kendall Square, Cambridge research site. Magee is a medicinal chemist who was the project leader during the discovery and early development of a fructose metabolizing compound that is currently being evaluated in clinical trials.
Not all sugars are the same
If you’re comparing calories, the two main types of dietary sugars - fructose and glucose - are exactly the same. (Sucrose, or table sugar, is a combination of fructose and glucose.) What makes fructose more harmful is the way the body metabolizes it. Unlike glucose, which is used by cells as an energy source, fructose is metabolized by the liver, where it promotes the synthesis of fat. In fact, some experts believe our bodies are not designed to handle this excess fructose. “In evolutionary history, it was a rare treat, where you might find fructose in a beehive or seasonal fruit, serving as an energy source when food was scarce. Now those with first-world diets have a constant onslaught, and our bodies have not caught up,” says Magee.
Today, HFCS, which is made from cornstarch and contains approximately 55% fructose, is found in most processed foods and sugary drinks. Sugar can also come in other disguised forms, such as cane sugar or beet sugar (high in sucrose) and agave nectar and honey (high in fructose). And our diets reflect this change: some 200 years ago, Americans ate about two pounds of sugar a year. Today, Americans consume on average greater than 120 pounds of sugar a year. Some of this increase is likely due to the fact that, as food makers began to take fat out of their products to respond to the rise in heart disease in the early '90s, they added more sugar to improve the flavor of what was now “fat free.” “Ironically, replacing fat in food with sugar just leads to fat in the liver and in circulation - none of which is good for your heart,” says Magee.
Very comprehensive and debunked many myths in a simple way. I am a radiologist and every time I watch your video - I feel I am back in my medical school.
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
@@contrarian604 The problem isn't high carbs. It's high fat!
As a person who tries to keep a low carb diet and follows many of the low carb people on TH-cam, it is well understood that eating fruit with sugar in it is not the same as just consuming the sugar. I have been telling people for many years that the best way to drink fruit juice is to just eat the fruit. As a diabetic I know that eating most fruits will raise my blood sugar some. Picking and choosing which fruits and the volume that I consume makes a big difference. Also, when I consume fruit is important. I like to do it not long before I have some good physical activity.
Thank you for your insights
I hope you drop the idea of low carb and just eat whole foods, eliminate processed.
@@andreawisner7358 Have you ever been diabetic, and tested how things effect you? I agree that whole foods and getting rid of processed foods make a big difference, but keeping my carbs low also helps a lot. Each of us has our own body that responds to different diets differently. I would hope that people would do what works for them.
@@m8s4lif No I haven't, and yes I understand that certain "whole" foods like potatoes and rice will affect diabetes until it is resolved with diet and weight loss. I see those foods as being processed because they're cooked. I wish you success in beating diabetes.
You have to be careful when listening to science from people who have an existing agenda. I respect Dr Sheault, but he is associated with Loma Linda University, which is well known to be plant based advocates. Science does not have pre-existing bias...people do. Why is it that Loma Linda people and other plant based researchers always tell you that low carb is bad?
I've been a nurse for over 40 years and Medcram is the only medical resource I trust on TH-cam. Please don't start selling supplements. 😉
Yes, there are a few that I recommend but we never recommend a specific company. We’ve been asked many times.
I am a retired RN and this is my source for science. They explain so clearly. ❤
No supposedly there's a better channel out there... non Dr john Cmpbell... none of his videos of fallacious at all 🤣🤣🤣
@@Dez083 he's an audience pleaser for more views. Apparently he's successful in that.
As a fellow nurse ive recently discovered ZOE on youtube. Recommended to me by a gastroenterologist. They do heaps of research. Highly recommend.
For over 25 years, I suffered from Fructose Intolerance. It was severe. I was afraid to eat any fruit because I never knew what was going to happen. I later learned that the Fructose levels varied greatly depending on ripeness. 4 years ago, I realized that I had liver methylation problems. Once I started supplementing accordingly, my Fructose Intolerance vanished. That being said, call me the "Canary" in the coal mine. The effects of fruit may be less but they are most definetly there.
supplementing with what?
@rdance3 Which supplements helped you fix your liver methylation problems?
Methylfolate, methylcobalamin, TMG, Glycine, Niacin, Creatine, Riboflavin, Zinc, Choline, Magnesium, @@sannamuh985
Yes please share:)
@@bonsummers2657 TMG
It's interesting the American Diabetes and Heart associations don't have nearly the amount of great information this channel has. One would think with their budgets, they would have the best information!
Awesome work as always, incredibly detailed and thorough! Love your videos
That's because they are money laundering entities for corporations & politicians, which is why there's so much bad & outdated info on their sites that end up doing more harm than good.
But why do they care as long as they can make money off of sick people since healthy people don't need them?...
You are mistaken. These 2 organizations have ample referenced studies attached to all their recommendations. You need to read the whole guidelines.
Also this doctor often says wrong information tucked in with the many thoughts he discusses to the point that any reader not versed in his topics will not as pot them. Flattery does not make him correct.
They get metric butt tons of money from Big Pharma. Their opinions mean dip.
Fructose is Fructose, regardless of the fiber. Bad information for the 50% of the western population afflicted with Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
Pfizer scientists are working to develop a novel medicine that blocks fructose metabolism to help prevent the buildup of fat, or steatosis, in the liver. When the liver has too much fat, it can lead to a more serious condition, known as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which causes scarring and eventually liver failure. “Steatosis, or fatty liver, is the very first step in a bad journey,” says Thomas Magee, Senior Director, Internal Medicine Research Unit, based at Pfizer’s Kendall Square, Cambridge research site. Magee is a medicinal chemist who was the project leader during the discovery and early development of a fructose metabolizing compound that is currently being evaluated in clinical trials.
Not all sugars are the same
If you’re comparing calories, the two main types of dietary sugars - fructose and glucose - are exactly the same. (Sucrose, or table sugar, is a combination of fructose and glucose.) What makes fructose more harmful is the way the body metabolizes it. Unlike glucose, which is used by cells as an energy source, fructose is metabolized by the liver, where it promotes the synthesis of fat. In fact, some experts believe our bodies are not designed to handle this excess fructose. “In evolutionary history, it was a rare treat, where you might find fructose in a beehive or seasonal fruit, serving as an energy source when food was scarce. Now those with first-world diets have a constant onslaught, and our bodies have not caught up,” says Magee.
Today, HFCS, which is made from cornstarch and contains approximately 55% fructose, is found in most processed foods and sugary drinks. Sugar can also come in other disguised forms, such as cane sugar or beet sugar (high in sucrose) and agave nectar and honey (high in fructose). And our diets reflect this change: some 200 years ago, Americans ate about two pounds of sugar a year. Today, Americans consume on average greater than 120 pounds of sugar a year.
@@contrarian604 Fruits are associated with a no increase and meat an INCREASE in non alcoholic liver disease.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7512147/
Thank you soo much
Being a doctor i wondered why we are kept away from knowledge of nutrition..in all those years in med schools we are told about pathologies , mechanisms and drugs😢😢
I had a dog which was type one diabetic and I belong to a diabetic forum . I thought no sugar or carbs is the correct approach which is what I did and she struggled with blood sugar going very low and spiking very high until when I noticed that if I gave a spoonful of honey for getting a bit lower she stabilized and did not sound like she was . The lightbulb went off and realized she needed carbs to stabilize blood sugar . There were members with similar problems on the forum actually stating protein was spiking blood sugar that made no sense . In the end I realized carbs were important to stable blood sugar .
Odd, everyone I know on a low carb diet including myself are all off their diabetic meds and their numbers are perfect.
You’re a great educational resource man. Appreciate your videos thanks for putting them online for us. Started following you when the pandemic first hit and never stopped because your videos are so well explained and interesting.
I appreciate that!
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
This is so helpful, Dr. Seheult. You've clarified and demystified so much. I hope you continue to produce more along these lines so that we, your audience, continue to be better equipped to manage our diets, health plans, and longevity goals. All the best!!
Great video! I started a very low carb (
Lol.no pun intended.
Strawberries and blackberries, and to a lesser extent blueberries. I honestly can't see why you would be missing out on anything just stopping there and including those. They are plenty healthy enough and are relatively low sugar.
Awesome presentation on natural whole fruit. In the studies on the beta carotene and vitamin E supplements it would be nice to know more about the supplements in the studies. Like whether they were sourced from organic plant matter or synthetic. It does make sense that isolating a component without the cofactors might do this.
Vitamin e should be mixed tocopherols not alpha isolate
There's so much more to the vitamin E story ( look up Barry Tan). My son hadl lung cancer and eventually put on palliative chemo but after his parents refused to give up we put him on high dose Vit E and he's making an amazing recovery and he's just one of many. Personally I feel Vit E is amazing but there's different types and studies generally only focus on the common one.
My grandfather is 83 year olds and still working (by choice) and is still super sharp mentally. This man eats 5 fruits per day and has his entire life. My childhood memories of him involve him holding some piece of fruit in his hand haha. He also loves his vegetables and salads.
Thanks again for the great video. You explain things so well.
If he had a carnivore diet his whole life, he’s be retired by now.
@@serjiang yeah he would be dead
yes, a hundred years ago fruit was available as it is today, all year round, and your grandfather seems to have been clairvoyant so he knew that he should eat five servings of fruit a day as recommended today ... hahahah ... how yes no
@@serjiang i've been a carnivore all my life and my dick got big and fat from all that meat... if you really want to know
@@s.nikolic497 he lived his youth in southern Italy where fruit is available all year you idiot. So stop trolling peoples comments and move on
Thank you so much. I tried to find these studies without much success, but you have done such diligent work for us. God bless!
Great information! I was just wondering about this topic, as I am trying to eat low carb for my health, but I love fruit and really didn't want to give it up, especially because I wasn't sure if taking supplements would replace the lost nutrients from not eating fruit. Now I know that I can continue to eat fruit and not worry about insulin spiking and resistance.
Exactly!
ANY carbs that are naturally connected to fiber will be beneficial. Avoid REFINED carbs, i.e. processed carbs in pasta, cookies, bread, and sugary anything. Stay healthy :-) .
I follow a meat based “low carb” diet. I eat fruit with the majority of my daily meals (mainly berries, melons and citrus). I have no problem with my insulin levels as a result. If you’re really worried about “insulin spikes” just do about 10 minutes of light to moderate intensity activity (like a brisk walk for example) after your meal. Brings the blood sugar back down.
This video bends the truth and distorts the health-aspects of eating whole fruit. Yes, consuming the whole fruit 'fiber-in" will still inject fructose into your system, and cause a glycemic response, albeit dampened relative to a liquid sugar. If you are trying to eat low-carb, then one must cut the fruit. Carbs is the culprit of chronic inflammatory disease, and fructose is a toxin that directly attacks the liver. No amount of fiber will reduce the total load being placed on the pancreas and the liver, when fruit is being consumed, and fructose ingested.
Patrick YVR, Fruit is a food source that humans and our ancestors have been eating for literally millions of years. It’s not “toxic”, that is pure fantasy and falsehood. Insulin release after meals is normal human physiology. Without it, it’s impossible to maintain proper electrolyte balance or maintain optimal sex hormones (like testosterone).
The diet that our ancestors have eaten since time immemorial included not only meat, but also fruit and honey. As a result these are foods that we as humans are specifically adapted to thrive on.
I used to follow a ketogenic diet. It tanked my testosterone, gave me electrolytes problems, and made it nearly impossible for me to gain muscle mass. All of those problems went away when I reintroduced fruit, honey, and raw milk.
Additionally, anyone who is in a long term constant ketogenic state is by definition systemically insulin resistant (yes, you read that correctly, ketogenic diets make people insulin resistant). The body loses the enzymes and use of the machinery that properly processes carbohydrates as fuel (insulin resistance results). What matters for health is not that the body has a blood sugar spike after eating fruit. This is normal. What matters is how quickly it comes back down, and even more so what your fasting blood sugar is. I have lower fasting sugars now that I eat carbs than I ever did when I was following a ketogenic diet.
Wow! Dr. Seheult👍Another one packed with data and info! You can explain the complex medical data in a such clear way which always amazes me. You are absolutely talented 👍
Appreciate all your effort 🙏
Terrific information & well presented Doc! Yet another video to send off to my cousin (M.D.) for viewing! This is a very important concept for people to understand. Thanks for these videos! 👍👍
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
Australian dietitian here. Thanks so much for this wonderful presentation. Perfectly explained.
Our pleasure!
Thank you. Dr Robert Lustig reported the same in his work with children recovering from brain surgery. He and his team controlled their diets carefully. They turned from couch potatoes to normally active youngsters (much to the relief of their parents.)
Can you elaborate more on this?
@@fred3000 Yes please, as it's difficult to parse how the statement about how, "Lustig reported the same in his work with children recovering from brain surgery" might correlate to this video.
most likeable and reliable doctor on youtube
One analogy I heard was: "Fruit contains a toxin (sugar), but the fruit also contains the antidote (fiber)."
Humans take great pride in removing the antidote.
It also means you can just leave out fruit together if the net gain is basically zero. It's what non biased research shows as well
@@wocket42 I'm not implying that the net gain is zero. I eat fruit. The nutrients are valuable. The fiber does more than just reduce the potential harm from sugar. But I avoid some types of especially sugary fruits, such as grapes.
@@wocket42the net gain is not zero
@@jimh.5286 In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The lower GI of consuming whole fruit may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
The antidote isn't needed of you don't consume to poison in the first place. Fructose is a toxin to the human body, without question.
Thank you doc, you've been my go to information on health ever since the pandemic started. The combination of real peer reviewed studies with your own personal assessment is top notch.
What an excellent video! I used to watch this channel in the first year of Covid, but then my interest wore off. Now I have rediscovered this channel.
This video's explanation about sugars contained in fruits especially resonates with me. Until a couple of months ago, I ate a lot of chocolates and added sugar, resulting in undefined pains in my stomach and tiredness. After comprehensive medical tests, nothing was found wrong, but I decided to change my diet, and I almost completely abolished these added sugars, and instead ate fruits. Result: I lost 5% of my weight in 2 months, and I feel much better, even though my initial weight was not unhealthy to begin with. I was actually surprised that eating fruits could result in so much weight loss.
Thanks for your feedback and for coming back!
I am finding the lectures more and more enchanting and captivating. Well Done!
This is one of those intuitive things that is simply study reinforced. More study needs to be made between the difference in results between masticated fruits and smoothied fruits.
I just discovering the effect of smoothies is similar to juicing this week. Quite a shock. The gluten goddess also explains these studies and research.
Apples forever.
@@wordzmyth an apple a day leads to tooth decay
@@chuckiegravesfield3170 but not compared to a coke and some sweets.
Actually, dentist Dr Ellie references apples as a tooth protective food.
see her videos.
Terse, comprehensive, thorough, scientific, smooth, n easy-flowing info. from an eloquent n knowledgeable speaker. Thanks, this was fascinating❤
This is the best presentation that I have had this year.
Unfortunately, it's fundamentally wrong, as slowing absorption with fiber doesn't reduce the total load placed on the body by the sugar content of the apple or piece of fruit.
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
I'm viewing this video again. Dr Scheult is a good source of knowledge. I've been following most of his advice, and the results in my case are good.
I love this! So many influencers are taking and drinking supplements daily like Athletic Greens. This is concerning to me.
What a refreshing and illuminating point of view. Thank you for your important work!
Thanks again to Dr. Seheult for his great insights. I was shocked once when I offered a very educated professional the first dibs on a fruit plate served at a business meeting. He declined, and told me no thanks--it has too much sugar! I had never had anyone tell me that about raw melon and strawberries. I would have understood if it was a can of cola or root beer, but it blew me away that he was worried about eating fresh fruit to avoid sugar. My understanding is that there is lots of fiber in fruit that slows absorption, that fruit is mostly water, and that the amount of sugar in a slice of melon is nothing so high as in a can of soda.
Maybe he was trying to maintain a state of ketosis.
@@gilessteve Most likely not, but it raises a good question, why would there be a significant difference between a whole apple VS apple slices, etc...?
The information in this video is misleading at best. Only a fool would argue that whole fruit (eaten whole) is not better than the juice from the fruit. Yes, the glycemic index and insulin spike of any liquid sugar will be far worse than consuming the fruit in whole, but that entirely misses the point. The point being that most fruits have been bioengineered by selective breeding over time to be sweeter and larger over time, with better shelf life. That fruit was naturally intended to be consumed seasonally, not bred and sold year-round. And fruit contains fructose (arguably worse than glucose), which must be processed at the liver, contributing directly to NAFLD.
Arguably, the real point isn't whether whole fruit, or fruit juice causes the bigger insulin spike, but rather, how they contribute to the total carbohydrate (glycemic) load that must be processed by the body, which evidence now shows results in increased inflammation, and the load placed on the pancreas and liver. The glycemic spike will be softer when the whole fruit is consumed, but the total glycemic load will be the same, as it is directly and entirely correlated with the total grams of carbs being ingested.
It is this sort of mis-information or selective positioning of the information, that makes things so confusing for people without medical or scientific background, muddying the waters, or worse, giving them the justification to "consume more fruit because MedCram said it was better than drinking the juice or Coke".
I too am a health professional, in my early 50s. Five years ago, I would have consumed all the fruit without issue. Now, I would react the same, and only go for the darker berries.
@@contrarian604 Please find my comments as well, and tell me what you think,
@@flolou8496 there is zero difference between eating a whole apple, and a sliced apple. Both will contain approx 19g of carbs, primarily fructose. Fructose is particularly toxic to the body as it must be processed by the liver only, just like alcohol.
If you believe that carbohydrates are the killer and cause of inflammatory disease, then you’ll understand why I haven’t had a banana, orange or apple for at least six months.
Blueberries will be in season where I live next month, so I may gorge myself while they are in season (and fresh, local and cheap) but my fruit intake the rest of the year is near-zero. When I speak with my patients about cutting their fruit intake, I get a LOT of push-back because many are emotionally attached to their daily fruit and fruit smoothies.
I’ll eat veggies, but I’ve basically eliminated my fruit intake as the carbs are unnecessary and the fructose is especially to be avoided.
Thanks a lot. This is excellent scholarship. You guys deserve a reward for best explanation. God bless!
Thank you. I miss eating my fruits. Finally, someone that explains it so well.
Glad it was helpful!
am apple a day, still true as long as it is not just the juice
This video bends the truth and distorts the health-aspects of eating whole fruit. Yes, consuming the whole fruit 'fiber-in" will still inject fructose into your system, and cause a glycemic response, albeit dampened relative to a liquid sugar. If you are trying to eat low-carb, then one must cut the fruit. Carbs is the culprit of chronic inflammatory disease, and fructose is a toxin that directly attacks the liver. No amount of fiber will reduce the total load being placed on the pancreas and the liver, when fruit is being consumed, and fructose ingested.
@contrarian604. Note taken. I’ve eliminated the amount of carbs in my diet, eg white rice white bread (occasionally sourdough bread), and potatoes and no cereal. I do, on occasion, like some fruits with my cottage cheese which is mostly berries. I realize that an apple has quite a bid if fructose.
@@ppw8716 In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
Thank you for putting this issue in context. I’ve made this argument recently in a group of commenters that apples did not have the same effect as sugar /carbs. I was not able to articulate my intuitive point. In future I will share this link to backup my statement. In the meantime, I still have my apple at least one time per day in place of a surgery desert.👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿😊
Fruit juice is fine and it is a very healthy drink. The problem is people throw away the fruit juice packaging which should be consumed while drinking the juice. Because the cardboard of packaging is full of fibers which slows down the sugar absorption in the gut.
I find the aluminium in the carton lining is also good for flossing
This is my engineer approach in having a care to everything related to health. Good Job!
Excellent video.
A couple of things to keep in mind though. Firstly fruit isn't now what fruit used to be. Commercial fruit and vegetables are mostly grown on depleted soils - they add some inorganic chemicals back to try and counter this but it's far from ideal. Most modern soil is very deficient in organic nutrients - especially the micronutrients - organic farmers use seaweed and concentrated extracts of same to put back these elements back into constantly used soils. Another thing to consider is that modern fruit has been bred to be very sweet. Google what bananas and grapes, for instance, originally looked like. Not that long ago there were two types of apples - red and green. Now my supermarket isle has numerous types of apples all claiming to be sweeter than the others. Keeping that in mind I would add that fruit is ok if you eat it correctly - by that I mean in moderation if you are not too overweight. Don't snack on it too much and don't begin your day with it as it will make you hungry for the rest of the day - and hungry for sugar/starch (carbs) at that. Treat fruit as a desert - eat at the end of your meal. Start with a salad with good oils on it, some homemade sauerkraut (one of the few superfoods), some protein, then a piece of fruit/yogurt for dessert. Practice intermittent fasting and as you clean your diet and become healthier investigate the benefits of longer (water and electrolytes only) fasts. Fasting - the omnipotent healer within us all.
Grapefruit used to be a very different fruit when I was a kid. It was sour and tangy. Now, it's super sweet. Apples - same thing. Apples were not that sweet when I was a kid.
false
@@markothwriter you do understand there are varieties of fruit, some tart apples, some tart grapefruit,,,,,,
@@IamsTokiWartooth there are hundreds of varieties of apples -- there are not many varieties of grapefruit and they are not sold by variety. There are about 3 varieties available at most, and usually only one in stock - I worked on a grocery supply chain planning project.
I’ve been trying to explain this to friends and family for years. Now I can send them this link! Thanks
I allow myself to eat as much fruit as I want and because of all the fiber I never eat too much. I always feel good after I eat fruit as opposed to eating a candy bar with the same amount of sugar. I’m thankful for all the data but the body intuitively knows what is healthy if you’re listening.
Obviously eating a whole fruit is better than a candy bar. But fruit has fructose, and fructose is carbohydrate that must be processed at the liver. This video bends the truth and distorts the health-aspects of eating whole fruit. Yes, consuming the whole fruit 'fiber-in" is healthier than downing just the juice, but it will still inject fructose into your system, and cause a glycemic response, albeit dampened relative to a liquid sugar. If you are trying to eat low-carb, then one must cut the fruit. Carbs is arguably the root culprit of chronic inflammatory disease, and fructose is a toxin that directly attacks the liver. No amount of fiber will reduce the total load being placed on the pancreas and the liver, when fruit is being consumed, and fructose ingested.
@@contrarian604 Cultures of longevity, referred to as “blue zones” are all high carb cultures. They eat roughly 50-85% of their diet in carbs. They have longevity and cognition into their elderly years on average. It is a fallacy to think whole, unrefined carbs are inflammatory and dangerous.
@@HealthAndHomestead there is too much emphasis on only the dietary component of the so-called blue zones such as Okinawans and those living the “Mediterranean diet “
A significant portion of their long lives free of illness comes from good sleep, routines free of nighttime modern activities, year-round exposure to sunlight and the benefits of near infrared (NIR) energy. A diet that is free of PUFA seed-oils, and as you mention, skipping meals and probably free-range meat and seafood.
None of these apply to those of us who live in the modern world and have a daily commute. Illness rates now even in these areas is rising due to the influx of modern convenience foods. It may be an oversimplification that “carbs are the root of the problems, but likewise it is a misnomer to assume that the outdoor environment doesn’t play a role in the longevity of blue zone residents, or that carbohydrate in sufficient quantity doesn’t place an inflammatory load on the body over the fullness of time.
Carbohydrate consumption whether processed or not, results in a direct load being placed on the pancreas. There are no essential carbohydrates, the body can make all it requires from other macros (protein or fat). Carbs cause the highest insulin response, and fruits have fructose, a direct causative agent to non alcoholic fatty liver disease.
I have only one life. I’ve been to Okinawa to visit, and can’t move there. I’ll hedge my bets by restricting my intake of carbs (whole and processed), and limiting fruits to those local and in season. Blueberry season is right around the corner but I have patients that consume one pound a week of frozen blueberries in their morning smoothies. The most pushback I get from my patients is from those with a regular fruit habit. Blending whole fruit negates the insulin-blunting effect of consuming fiber-in.
As I’ve mentioned, the fiber does nothing to reduce the total glycemic load being placed on the pancreas and liver.
Buyer beware. Half the American population has NAFLD, and many are not obese and don’t even know it.
@@contrarian604 OH MY GOD!! BE AFRAID. BE VERY AFRAID OF FRUCTOSE CONTAINING NATURAL FRUITS THAT HUMANS HAVE BEEN EATING FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS! NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS SURVIVED!!
@@contrarian604 Again, no association with liver disease (non alcoholic). If this were the case we would se that go up. Instead we see meat associated with it: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7512147/
Excellent and informative as usual
Just one question ... If I blend fruit into a smoothie is that not the same net effect as mechanical breakdown of the fruit from chewing? Wouldn't the fiber content still remain the same after blending thus still preserving the healthful effect of the fruit while negating the concern regarding, "free fructose"? Obviously the blending process leads to greater "destruction" of the bonds but does that totally negate the benefit of adding whole fruit to a smoothie? Thank you.
Good question. I think it’s a continuum. If you’ve noticed the graph with the applesauce, that seem to be pretty close to eating natural food. I’m not sure if the smoothie would move beyond applesauce and into the juice range.
Think it depends on how well blended, too. Some blenders are more powerful than others. Powerful are better for crohn's, bad for diabetes.
MedCram is a good channel, but this video is blatantly wrong.
Slowing absorption with fiber doesn't reduce the total load placed on the body by the sugar content of the apple or piece of fruit.
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
@@contrarian604
What theyneed to figure out is why these series of studies disagree, before blatantly saying one group is wrong, and the other is correct.
@@b_uppy I think we need to rely more on common sense, than endless studies. Fruit has fructose. Fructose is just like alcohol, and must be processed at the liver. Fructose is a direct contributor to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, that's why they call it non-alcoholic fatty liver disease!!! They could just as easily call it fruit-caused fatty liver disease. Fruit contains carbohydrate, a direct burden on the pancreas, and arguably has only fractions of the "lots of nutrients" we have been led to believe by the fruit-industry and lobby.
No thanks, I'll stick with whole foods, and limit my fruits to seasonal and to those which are low in CHO.
My graduate studies were in Epidemiology and Community Health. Although I never worked professionally in the field I did operate a consulting business which incorporated many elements of my graduate education. I have very little regard for the Western Medical Community and I am routinely aghast at the sheer ignorance and arrogance of MD's. PA's, NP's, ad nauseum.
This channel is a welcome and refreshing exception. Subscribed.
I agree with you whole heartedly. I don't know if it is a personality type, or the training of the system, but I dare say as I have gotten older that my respect for doctors has significantly decreased. I think the US medical system is excellent for acute traumatic injuries and life sustaining care.
Lifestyle conditions, stress, and the mind/ body issues are in the dark ages. In many ways, the way doctors hand medications out without the slightest provocation is more barbaric than 18th century bloodletting. Contemporary medicine is stuck in a perverse and naive framework of cartesian dualism that is so reductionist it cannot see the forest through the trees.
gr8 stuff. Loved your stuff during covid. certainly helped me and family get through it. thanks Dr.
I agree with this premise. People have been eating fresh fruit for millenia and the epidemic of insulin resistance and diabetes and other chronic illnesses did escalate until after the industrial revolution and advances in corporate farming. Look at photos of the 19th century and prior and you see that the only obese people were kings and queens and affluent urban populations. I have an even simpler rule than trying to analyze what carbs I'm eating....I ONLY eat fresh whole foods direct from local farmers or grown in my backyard garden. Nothing from the center aisles of big groceries. Nothing with a food nutrition label on it.
So what does low carb have to do with this video? You've show a bunch of studies that says fruit is better than a SAD diet which no low carber disagrees with but the title is low carb fallacy?
Many people in the low-carb community, believe this fallacy.
@@Medcram I know there are people who say that fruit is just as bad as sugar which I agree needs context. However a well-formulated low carb diet needs no carbs and adding fiber to distressed bowels often make things worse. You haven't presented evidence comparing LC and LC + fruit so this isn't about LC. The title is just dragging us through the mud for whatever reason.
Fact, sugar is a carbohydrate. Fructose is no good at all to the human body. It give you fatty liver, gains weight, rots teeth and generally does you no good at all. That's the position of a low carber. Glucose, in low amounts are required in the blood and brain, but fructose us no good at all.
I appreciate Dr. Seheult for his lectures as a physician.
Lots of good info, but some things missing as well. Apples are one of the highest-fiber fruits, so no question that 2 apples are better than a Coke. Many people extrapolate that conclusion to believe that any fruit and any amount of fruit is healthy. Many of the sweetest fruits eaten in excess can cause fatty liver and high uric acid problems. Our bodies are adapted to use fruit that was historically only available in the Fall to trigger fat storage to survive the food scarcity of Winter. We no longer have Winter food scarcity and now fruit fructose is a major source of fatty liver disease and obesity, even in young people. You should do a talk interview here with Dr. Richard Johnson at the University of Denver. Cheers
Cherries come out pretty early.
@@Medcram so we should eat fruit as they appear in their season, perhaps. Here in Tasmania we have berries, cherries and stone fruit in December, January, then apples and grapes around April, May. Winter hits and days get very short. Of course we can buy fruits from all over the world at any time but I'm wondering if we should stay regional and seasonal for the best health.
@@Medcramis that true that too much fruit causes fatty liver and high uric acid levels?
@@skippy6462 Might I suggest you read both The Obesity Code & The Diabetes Code by Dr. Jason Fung to get the COMPLETE picture about fruit. Yes the fiber is beneficial, however it can still cause IR problems if one eats too much of it. Some berries are better, but a diet high in high glycemic fruit, any fructose, is going to cause some degree of insulin resistance.
@@DMWB57 Just for your general consideration and not necessarily specific to the statement about insulin resistance from "to much fruit" consumption per se, Red Pen Reviews, the service which scrutinizes the evidentiary content claims of various books, gave this particular book a 60% rating, which is not poor but not great either.
From the last line of the review summary: "Bottom Line: Following the TOC program will likely result in weight loss and improved health, but the book’s scientific claims should be read with skepticism."
Another great informative medical video from McCram channel
It appears that apple sauce DOES have a higher insulin spike than a whole apple (but less than apple juice, of course). Does this mean adding fruit into the blender to make a smoothie is a bad idea because it breaks down those sources of fiber in whole fruit?
I drink a smoothie daily with lots(!!) of flax seeds and kale/spinach added. I bet this counter-balances the breakdown of the fiber in the small amount of added fruit. So --- it depends on what's in your smoothie :-)
@@myggggeneration I don't think it works that way. I can't take a fiber pill to counteract the soda I drink with it.
It seems to mitigate the effects. If you look at the randomized controlled trial that we showed in our video fiber from Di. It was the best, but fiber from supplement was a close second.
Nobody in the low carb scene considers a fruit "the same" as refined fructose. Fiber content is ALWAYS factored in, and when specifically talking about fruit, issue is usually taken with the fact that all of these fruits are bred to be larger and sweeter - they aren't "natural" apples, and thus you can't intuit this topic via their historic consumption.
Wha??? There's a BUNCH of LC people (even popular teachers) that say the 2 are the same. I've had these people tell me for many years "sugar is sugar" "doesn't matter where it comes from" "Fruit is just a sugar bomb".
As for your other things these scammers say:
" fruits are bred to be larger and sweeter"
That doesn't matter.
They're also bred to be the size preferred for eating, and for growing, transport, and storage. It doesn't change the body reacting positively with them.
And by 'sweeter', are you saying it has "too much sugar"? Well I see in the fruitarian community that they still often don't get enough calories. And when people DO get enough calories, they stop eating. No fruitarian gets fat or even gets diabetes. So there is no problem.(as you can see from me who's been on a high-fruit diet for 28 years)
@@GaryHighFruit A glance at your TH-cam channel shows you're focused on crazy outliers like Frank Tufano. These are the convenient low hanging fruits (pun) that the vegan activists target.
Try Thomas DeLaur, arguably THE biggest "Keto influencer" out there. In this video at 5:00 he summarizes whether he thinks the fructose is fruit is an equal concern (spoiler: it isn't) - and at 7:30 he starts focusing on fiber.
th-cam.com/video/fuFoPBJG2U4/w-d-xo.html
A good channel with SCIENTISTS talking along low carb subjects is Low Carb Down Under.
Stop getting led by the nose by vegan activists presenting the weakest possible people as "the low carb scene."
Love this channel, thanks for delivering this information for free
I can't thank you enough for addressing this issue which has been on my mind for years, as I do enjoy eating fruit every day.
You're so welcome!
So fibre and polyphenols, among other supposedly unknown compounds, are a large part of what makes fruits better than the juices. I wonder what is missing with vitamin e that shows no benefit/ harm of their supplementation in many studies. Also, could you make a video on omega3 supplements vs omega 3 from fish. Or fish vs vegan diet. Thank you so much for precious knowledge. I am sharing the link to this video on a similar video made by a popular indian youtuber dhruv rathee hoping that your evidence based video would have an even wider viewership. Thank you!
great !
Thank you so much
Long chain omega 3s (DHA and EPA) originate in algae, not fish:
Title: Omega-3 Fatty Acids: An Essential Contribution
Journal: Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS), National Institutes of Health (NIH)
FISH OIL vs ALGAE OIL OMEGA 3:
Title: Omega-3 Fatty Acid Concentrates: Comparison of Two Different Omega-3 Sources
Journal: Lipids in Health and Disease
Title: A Single Dose of Fish Oil Increases Omega-3 Levels and Does Not Affect Platelets in Humans
Journal: The Journal of Nutrition
No difference in bioavailability:
Title: The bioavailability of DHA from algal oil, but not from fish oil, is significantly improved in healthy adults: a randomized trial
Journal: The Journal of Nutrition
Title: Bioavailability of marine n-3 fatty acid formulations
Journal: Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids
No difference in viability and cell proliferation of Caco-2 cells:
Title: Bioconversion of ALA to EPA, but not DHA, is Inversely Related to DHA Status in Men
Journal: The Journal of Lipid Research
MedCram is a good channel, but this video is blatantly wrong.
Slowing absorption with fiber doesn't reduce the total load placed on the body by the sugar content of the apple or piece of fruit.
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
Whole Fruits are clearly better than the juice from a fruit, but both contain fructose, which must be handled at the liver.
It is a direct contributor to NAFLD, which afflicts 30-50% of the population, many who do not show obvious signs of obesity.
Not all sugars are the same
If you’re comparing calories, the two main types of dietary sugars - fructose and glucose - are exactly the same. (Sucrose, or table sugar, is a combination of fructose and glucose.) What makes fructose more harmful is the way the body metabolizes it. Unlike glucose, which is used by cells as an energy source, fructose is metabolized by the liver, where it promotes the synthesis of fat. In fact, some experts believe our bodies are not designed to handle this excess fructose. “In evolutionary history, it was a rare treat, where you might find fructose in a beehive or seasonal fruit, serving as an energy source when food was scarce. Now those with first-world diets have a constant onslaught, and our bodies have not caught up,” says Magee.
Today, HFCS, which is made from cornstarch and contains approximately 55% fructose, is found in most processed foods and sugary drinks. Sugar can also come in other disguised forms, such as cane sugar or beet sugar (high in sucrose) and agave nectar and honey (high in fructose). And our diets reflect this change: some 200 years ago, Americans ate about two pounds of sugar a year. Today, Americans consume on average greater than 120 pounds of sugar a year. Some of this increase is likely due to the fact that, as food makers began to take fat out of their products to respond to the rise in heart disease in the early '90s, they added more sugar to improve the flavor of what was now “fat free.” “Ironically, replacing fat in food with sugar just leads to fat in the liver and in circulation - none of which is good for your heart,” says Magee.
I haven't heard anyone dispute that if packaged in fiber, it spikes glucose less.
Does not mean it's a great idea to eat.
Modern apples have a very low nutriontal benefit compared to the amount of sugar.
The association with less diabetes, eating more fruit is bogus. These people ate a lot of other different things than fruit.
He was talking about sugar one minute and fructose the next. He never mentioned glucose. Glucose it totally natural, we can make it ourselves. Fructose, is a toxin.
As always very informative and scientifically based! Thanks Dr Seheult😊
Not a shred of relevant science in his review.
It's a pity you don't take your own advice. Look at all factors. You didn't mention the phytotoxins, carcinogens, anti-nutrients, and oxalates that also comprise the whole fruit consumed.
It is also noteworthy that hba1c assays do NOT register fructose glycation, and glycation occurs whether the fructose is released fast OR slow
Thank you!! Finally someone slamming this horrible lie in the face with facts!
Truth is a lie now?
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
@@contrarian604 That’s the beauty of research a lot changes in 8 years. Imagine if we just stopped in all health studies and research 8 years ago where we would be. I always ask people to point out someone who has health issues from eating Whole Foods such a fruits and vegetables… show me the cause and effect where they become diabetic or obese…
@@dmcentYT You have to be a fool to think that any amount of research will change basic body biochemistry and causes of mortality. I'll eat whole (or even blended) veggies any day, as they are low in sugar, but two years ago I stopped eating fruit on a regular basis, as the fructose is a direct attack on the liver and contributes to the lifetime load placed on the pancreas.
A recent study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism by researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham found that nearly 40 percent of young adults without diabetes experience insulin resistance, a condition in which the body does not respond correctly to insulin and is unable to use glucose from the blood for energy. His team investigated data collected from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, in a national sample of more than 6,000 young American adults. They found that four in 10 adults, ages 18-44, have insulin resistance, and those with insulin resistance have a significantly higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors such as obesity, high blood pressure, poor physical activity and high cholesterol.
“We traditionally think of young adults as being in good health, but our findings show that this is not necessarily true,” Parcha said. Previously, insulin resistance was thought to be a condition only of those who were obese; but since 50 percent of participants with insulin resistance were not obese, this may not be the case.
I have nothing to gain from encouraging or dissuading people from eating fruit. But if Fruit has fructose, arguably half the population is insulin-resistant, and fructose and alcohol must be processed at the liver, then shouldn't we be restricting the intake of fruit, and not encouraging its wholesale consumption as no different than whole vegetables? As they are clearly not equivalent in health benefits and as a contributor to diabetes.
@@dmcentYT Depending on the website, 20-50% of the population has Non alcoholic fatty liver disease. The liver foundation website says:
Facts at-a-Glance
About 100 million individuals in the United States are estimated to have Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.
Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD), is the most common form of liver disease in children and has more than doubled over the past 20 years.
Fruit is natural, but whether consumed whole or as a juice, still is composed of fructose, a direct toxin that must be dealt with by the liver.
The very definition of NAFLD is that one has a fatty liver, but does not consume alcohol.
Fruit, in addition to consumption of processed foods made with high -fructose corn syrup (promoted by the corn lobby), are directly contributors to NAFLD.
Consume at your own discretion.
Fantastic lucid appraisal of the vast clinic data pertaining to what is probably the biggest health epidemic in the western world . Subscribed .
Used to drink apple juice diluted with water all the time and thought I was doing something good for my body. Well I got diabetes! Now I‘ve been in reversal for 4 years due to a low carb lifestyle
Does reversal mean your body can now handle sugar as someone's who doesn't have diabetes?
@@iCristalrose I don‘t eat sugar and have no desire to ever eat it again. My body does handle the carbs from veg and berries very well and I‘ve now had an a1c in the low 5s for many years without any meds. Is my diabetes reversed? It sure looks to me this way...
@@MsTony1402 Sounds like you managed it, not reversed.
@@iCristalrose meddical experts call it reversed if your a1c is in the non diabetic range without meds for over a year. Google it. So I have reversed it. The question is whether it can be completely healed...
@@KenJackson_US that is a despicable lie. There are people who reverse diabetes eating high carb low fat.
great info thanks. no guilt eating natural fruit in season, cheers
In my 20’s I Got up too 91 kilos . I decided upon a whim - to become a fruitarian for 1 year .
Absolutely nothing else but living fruit …. No tea coffee or anything else no exception’s.
From 1 Xmas to the next . I had never felt so physically healthy in all my life .
That being said . As the weight fell away , I had to eat increasing volumes of fruit . I never needed to drink water …and I rarely needed to have a crap .
My weight dropped down to 59 kg by the next Xmas …..at witch point , I slowly started integrating other foods back into my diet . That was 30 years ago . I kept my weight at between 72 and 78 kilos since that time .
During that year I stopped taking The ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER MEDICATION .
And the antidepressant.
What did not change / I still had bouts of depression .
The dyslexia stayed .
The attention deficit disorder stayed .
To combat those things , I trained martial arts 3 days a week. It helped a little .
Unfortunately 30 years later , I’m still wrestling with the same things . 🤷
One of my cousins tried becoming fruitarian , however , it didn’t suit her body . She started feeling sick after a few days , so she stopped 🤷 .
If I’d had a dollar form everyone along the way who tolled me it was impossible 🤦🏻♀️ you can’t do it , Blah Blah Blah / I could have bought a new car . Rubbish people said …. But but but … you have to have xyz protein / iron / ect ect ect 🤷 I did it - regardless of their opinions .
I don’t mind telling you , I have Never been able to replicate the drive and commitment I had during that time . If my girlfriend back then / my wife today , hadn’t seen it herself . No one would believe it happened . Take care of yourself and each other . 👣🦘👍
I assume you meant "Trolled" 😄 not "Tolled". I even SAW it as trolled because I'm used to seeing that word in the high-fruit-community.
"she tried becoming fruitarian , ... She started feeling sick after a few days "
When that occurs, it's from detox (or she just got a cold etc by coincidence). With detox, the body starts to REMOVE 'sickness' from the body. And as the toxins get into your circulation, it's nearly the same feeling as being sick. I've had this experience. It explains many of the ex-vegan stories on the internet. But they're not aware fo this phenomenon, and just blame the diet.
Interesting. I'm the opposite, 95% carnivore, and I can tell you the symptoms that you couldn't get rid of absolutely have disappeared by a carnivore diet. The main thing with fructose is that it is only metabolized through the liver, which wasn't discussed here at all. Chances are many of these people eating so much fruit have fatty livers that they just don't know about, unless they are highly active and burn through it quickly. If not, your body is storing that. The only fruit I do eat is avocados for the healthy fats, and low carb content, and occasionally some berries, mainly blackberries because of the low oxalate content.
Thank you so much! I can now enjoy my favorite fruits!❤️
You are so welcome!
Love your videos!! Best source online!!🎉❤
This was excellent. What an important validation of the importance of eating Whole Foods
Great information, I loved this, I am 64, very athletic, and I watch a ton of Peter Attia and his connections. It's very funny how pro and amateur cyclists on TH-cam know the importance of fruit. Some of these guys eat 30 bananas a day and are slim and trim. I have always noticed that eating 5 to 7 pieces of fruit a day, I would recover and just plainly have more energy, I have tried many ways of eating, and I believe, mainly plant based is the way to go. I was diagnosed with thrombocytopenia 15 months ago. Which is an auto immune disease, also hypothyroidism, since I was 39. They say there is no cure, I believe that is bull, I believe in the law of cause and effect. Cheers, ps. I have done the immune therapy and steroid treatment for 4 days. No results. The thing that irks me is that I cannot exercise even in zone 2 or lift from what I have found out. That sucks.
slim are you think sarcopenia hahaha
If you watch a ton of Peter Attia, maybe ask him what you think of your fruit habit. Carbs are pro-inflammatory, why do you think you have an auto-immune disease?
You can gorge on fruit when you're young and the body hasn't had a chance to break down from the chronic intake of fruit.
You do realize that Steve Jobs ate a ton of apples, was a borderline fruitarian, and died prematurely of pancreatic disease, right?
Slowing absorption with fiber doesn't reduce the total load placed on the body by the sugar content of the apple or piece of fruit.
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
@Patrick YVR it's funny you said that, I watched a couple of the ketogenic movies on the weekend. I always thought Tim Noakes was a quack and all the ketogenic people. I was eating vegan for a couple of years and felt fantastic. So what is your opinion on Caldwell Esselstyn and the vegan there. When I did eat vegan, I did feel like a machine when cycling, at my very physically demanding job. I am trying the low-carb, high approach I started yesterday. I will eat a little brown rice. I quit drinking beer a year and a half ago and dropped 15 to 20 lbs. So, the whole insulin resistance theory makes total sense to me now. I am not so worried about me, I have great discipline. That wife of mine is a different story. She needs to drop about 40 lbs. I am very excited about this . I get blood work done in mid-July again. Thx for the conversation.
@@duanefrench3500 Listening to an interview from David Perlmutter, NYT bestseller and author regarding Uric Acid, fructose directly feeds into uric acid, and signals that the body should make fat (presumably to prepare for winter and food scarcity). As 50% of the population now has NA fatty liver disease and probably half of the remaining 50% are either diabetic or pre-diabetic, the vast majority of the population should be dissuaded from consuming fruit.
I consumed fruit regularly for enough decades. I now view it no differently than a treat, as dessert. Not for regular consumption, regardless of the presence of fiber, or not.
@Patrick YVR my problems, with auto immune disease I believe was so much grain, I ate oatmeal for breakfast for basically for 35 years straight. My wife would say to me, "You thrive on bread honey. I quit eating dairy in 2017. I watched that neurologist interview Tim Noakes. The movie " Cereal Killers" and The One with Australian guy cycling around his country. Today, I feel great. Not peeing nearly as much as normal. I am going after work to practice golf and some strength training later. But 0 weakness of any kind, and not sleepy. I am very pleased.
Thank You Dr.S This needs to be in The Media!!!
Appreciate this important info as I was aware of the "fruit has too much sugar" scare that the low carb guys state. I do lower carb and healthy fats now bur will also increase the fruit.
Increasing your fruit intake would be a mistake. The information in this video is biased. I have a friend who just got back from the Phillipines to settle her mum's estate. All her relatives were excessively obese, and asked her if she had cancer because she is of a normal body weight (105-110lbs). Diabetes is rampant in the Phillipines, the information in this video is misleading. Of course whole fruit is better than fruit juice, but regardless, the fruit has fructose, which is sugar that must be processed at the liver. BAD ADVICE being used to justify increased consumption of fruit.
Slowing absorption with fiber doesn't reduce the total load placed on the body by the sugar content of the apple or piece of fruit.
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
You don’t eat fruit for low carbs, you eat fruit for it’s nutrients. Most fruit has a plenty of fiber, which reduces it’s glycemic index. The soda has no nutrients, and has a very high glycemic index.
Thanks for the video! However the point of low-carb dieting is not to have insulin spikes which cause a cascade of effects that are deleterious to health such as fat up take into the body and inflammation. Fruit and juice, verified in your very presentation, both cause similar glucose levels. The since juice cause a quicker, more aggressive insulin response, glucose is metabolized quicker. Regarding fruit, “slower” isn’t better as prolonged durations of elevated insulin leaves the window open for the possibility of more fat-up take into one’s body form one’s diet. Unchecked, this leads to insulin resistance where one’s body is adapted to high glucose and insulin levels. This combined with fatty foods is the recipe for the lifestyle health crisis the world is suffering.
Low-carb dieters know that the ultimate culprit to poor health is insulin and insulin resistance and we attempt to avoid anything that tiggers an insulin response and it’s associated harms.
Love you channel!
Thanks for the comment. I would point out, however that if it were the case that eating fruits would cause elevated glucose and therefore insulin and lead to fat absorption, and therefore diabetes, this doesn’t seem to hold up in the long term observational studies which are associated with a reduction in diabetes. There may be more variables in the equation. Things like polyphenols fiber, they may also affect the incidence of diabetes negatively.
@@Medcram Might I suggest you read The Diabetes Code & The Diabetes Code by Dr. Jason Fung?
Observational studies is what you're hanging your hat on Doctor?
@@MedcramAlso bear in mind that people who start eating fruit to fix diabetes will most likely be altering other health factors, and taking better care of themselves... thus confounding the outcome in favour of fruit being the main reason for success
Low blood glucose=cortisol+adrenaline=insulin, insulin resistance, adrenaline desensitization, poor sleep, hunger, blocked HGH.
Exactly
This is only common sense. I never believed fructose in whole fruit would be harmful. Great video Dr S🇨🇦🙂
What if liver glycogen stores are already full? Then, all fructose should be counter-productive, regardless of the speed of digestion. There should be a limit to even "whole apple" fructose, and the limit is going to depend on the rest of the diet, activity levels, and the timing of it all.
Pfizer scientists are working to develop a novel medicine that blocks fructose metabolism to help prevent the buildup of fat, or steatosis, in the liver. When the liver has too much fat, it can lead to a more serious condition, known as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which causes scarring and eventually liver failure. “Steatosis, or fatty liver, is the very first step in a bad journey,” says Thomas Magee, Senior Director, Internal Medicine Research Unit, based at Pfizer’s Kendall Square, Cambridge research site. Magee is a medicinal chemist who was the project leader during the discovery and early development of a fructose metabolizing compound that is currently being evaluated in clinical trials.
Not all sugars are the same
If you’re comparing calories, the two main types of dietary sugars - fructose and glucose - are exactly the same. (Sucrose, or table sugar, is a combination of fructose and glucose.) What makes fructose more harmful is the way the body metabolizes it. Unlike glucose, which is used by cells as an energy source, fructose is metabolized by the liver, where it promotes the synthesis of fat. In fact, some experts believe our bodies are not designed to handle this excess fructose. “In evolutionary history, it was a rare treat, where you might find fructose in a beehive or seasonal fruit, serving as an energy source when food was scarce. Now those with first-world diets have a constant onslaught, and our bodies have not caught up,” says Magee.
Today, HFCS, which is made from cornstarch and contains approximately 55% fructose, is found in most processed foods and sugary drinks. Sugar can also come in other disguised forms, such as cane sugar or beet sugar (high in sucrose) and agave nectar and honey (high in fructose). And our diets reflect this change: some 200 years ago, Americans ate about two pounds of sugar a year. Today, Americans consume on average greater than 120 pounds of sugar a year.
@@johnsheehy4192 Well have you ever seen people eat 15 oranges in one sitting? Obviously, we always need to monitor the quantity of food we consume.
@@contrarian604 Not ever touching anything that Frnkenpharmacological company comes out with!
@@tanyasydney2235 You don't need 15 oranges at once to have excess fructose. Just one orange in the wrong context is negative. If your liver glycogen stores are full, and you digest fructose, then any amount that can't be used in real time by the liver has to be turned into visceral triglycerides that are prone to inflammation, and dampen leptin sensitivity, which can lead to a vicious cycle of excess hunger.
Yes, 'we all' agree that juice is not good. However, the whole fruit raises blood glucose more than protein or fat.
That might not be a problem if it doesn’t lead to insulin resistance.
@@Medcram Doctor, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. What do you mean, "it MIGHT NOT be a problem IF it doesn't lead to Insulin resistance"? If it's adding to the CHO load being placed on the pancreas, or being dealt with by the liver, then how can it NOT be contributing to insulin resistance?
Univ of Alabama Birmingham study showed that 40% young adults (under 45) are insulin resistant. Previously, insulin resistance was thought to be a condition only of those who were obese; but since 50 percent of participants with insulin resistance were not obese, this may not be the case.
“As health care providers, we often consider screening for insulin resistance and cardiovascular diseases only in those who are obese,” said Pankaj Arora, M.D., senior author of the study and physician-scientist in UAB’s Division of Cardiovascular Disease. This means that we will be missing out on providing highly effective, preventive and therapeutic strategies to young adults who could be at risk of fatal cardiovascular events later in life.”
Arora emphasizes that, although young adults can sometimes be overlooked when it comes to screening for diabetes and cardiovascular and cardiometabolic diseases, these screenings could easily be implemented in clinics across the country in an effort to prevent deaths caused by these diseases.
“This means that we will be missing out on providing highly effective, preventive and therapeutic strategies to young adults who could be at risk of fatal cardiovascular events later in life.”
Endocrinologist (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) Professor Katherine Samaras believes restricting carbohydrates and lowering calories is key for diabetics.
"in my view, it seems counterintuitive to be asking people who have a deficiency in insulin, an inability to produce enough insulin, a requirement for medications to help them make insulin, to be eating so much carbohydrate. A meal that is relatively high in CHO can often produce very high glucose levels, and this is a problem."
Professor Samaras, has been working with the (Aussie) federal government to lower the carbohydrate level of hospital food
Interviewer: "What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, And so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts.The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
It reminds me of the THC fallacy. We all know that smoking marijuana produces a different buzz than smoking hashish, yet it is the THC that is the intoxicant.
Weed simply has different add on compounds than hashish and vice versa.
I figure it out as a teenager.
Great video. I don't understand the issue with smoothies though. Dr Devor implied that a smoothie is the same as fruit juice, but the graph shows that whole fruit and apple sauce are basically equal. When I make a smoothie, it has the same consistency as applesauce.
Dr. Seheult: thank you for this wonderful presentation. I have a question re: the blending of vegetables and fruits together in smoothies, preserving the fiber in the smoothie. I get that question from patients and in the Latino community there’s a big tendency to consume them. I heard you said fruit juices and smoothies in this presentation but can you clarify in the case of fruits and veggies and the effects of the blades on the fiber lattice? Thanks so much. 🙏🏼
Yes! I asked the same question above. I'm very interested in the blending of fruit too. It appears the apple sauce had a slightly higher response than whole apple.
Blending can reduce fibre. A high powered machine can be more of a problem sugar intake wise over a lower powered one.
Would still like to hear about nectar and smoothies over juices.
It seems from the data that blending does take away the fiber. I think this is an interesting topic, and one that I need to research more before I give a clear answer on it. But it seems as though adding fiber to a smoothie is better than juicing, but eating the whole fruit is probably better than the smoothie.
Here’s more info: www.diabetes.org.uk/guide-to-diabetes/enjoy-food/what-to-drink-with-diabetes/fruit-juices-and-smoothies
@@Medcram Thank you so much for your reply Dr. Seheult. I agree with you and I have also looked in the available literature and don't seem to find much information on the effect of blending. I'll share with you a typical recipe provided by patients: green apple, celery, kale, pineapple, leaving the pulp in the drink. I am reluctant to give a definite answer as I don't want to discourage them from having their veggies. I hope there are more studies set up to address this issue. From a big fan in the nursing profession. Muchas gracias!!!
This is a VERY IMPORTANT MUCH NEEDED VIDEO, which you can't say about most videos.
I really enjoyed this. It was easy to understand. Also it’s common sense. Something that God made that has vitamins and minerals is going to be better for you than a sugary drink without any nutritional value.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Everyone makes fantastical claims about the nutrient value of fruit. Please educate yourself before being deluded with the company line that fruits are full of nutrients.
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
Just because "god made it,", doesn't mean fruits can be consumed without any restriction. Fruits only have water soluble vitamins, primarily Vitamin C. Minerals are only present in trace amounts, typically in the skin (where pesticides would be located), as minerals aren't typically water-soluble either. Depending on the website, 20-50% of the population has Non alcoholic fatty liver disease. The liver foundation website says:
Facts at-a-Glance
About 100 million individuals in the United States are estimated to have Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.
Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD), is the most common form of liver disease in children and has more than doubled over the past 20 years.
Fruit is natural, but whether consumed whole or as a juice, still is composed of fructose, a direct toxin that must be dealt with by the liver.
Consume at your own discretion.
The fruit we eat today is nothing like it was in its natural state. All the fruit we eat today has gone through centuries of change to make them juicier and sweeter. Don't get all your information from one source. He started the whole presentation to debunk the low-carb diet. Once your journey is planned out, you can talk your way into it with ease. Bottom line: does your glucose spike or not after eating certain fruits? And, can you get the same nutrients from other foods that do not spike your blood glucose?
This is very informative. Thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
@@Medcram I particularly appreciate the way you cite verifiable sources and breakdown the information for those of us who are not specialists in any relevant field.
This is not a "low-carb fallacy", real low-carb people know and highlight this, I remember a study on mice chow processing that showed weight gain in the processed group (I think it was blended) despite being isocaloric.
You’d be surprised how many “low-carb” people don’t understand this.
Yeah, it's low carb bashing from pro cereal people.
MedCram is a good channel, but this video is blatantly wrong.
Slowing absorption with fiber doesn't reduce the total load placed on the body by the sugar content of the apple or piece of fruit.
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
@@wocket42😂 who loves a conspiracy theory?
For elderly people with dentures that rely on blended fruit and vegetable smoothies, are they more prone to diabetes since the cell walls would be broken down in a blender? If so, what is your recommended fruit and vegetable intake method among elderly folks? Thank for this video!!
This is a really good point. Perhaps finely chopped is better than pureed? So there is some work for the digestion to do
@@wordzmyth yeah I think finely chopped might make it easier to chew with dentures. Actually when you mentioned the digestion issue, fermentation may make the nutrients even more bioavailable during digestion since the microbes had a chance to break down the food before reaching the intestine. So maybe one of the solution for elderly with dentures is fermented finely chopped fruits and vegetables.
Blenderizing fruits does tend to cause the natural sugar from them to go more quickly into the bloodstream, increasing undesirable higher insulin reaction. The answer is, drink a tablespoon of Organic Apple Cider Vinegar in a glass of water, or the juice of half a lemon sweetened with a bit of honey, Stevia powder, or Monkfruit granules in water. The ACIDITY of lemon juice or Apple Cider Vinegar slows down the spiking of insulin by around one third. It's the sudden, quick spiking of blood sugar that you want to avoid! PS I would avoid eating ripe bananas. The sugar content is very high. Only eat green or greenish ones if you wish to stabilize your blood sugar. Raisins are particularly bad too for giving a rapid insulin spike. Prunes, however, have an insulin reaction that is low.
The problem is the fruits of today are not the same as what they used to be decades ago. They are Genetically Modified to be too sweet than what they should have been in nature.
Oh, man, I've seen this post so many times over the years. So much fallacy.
In the end, it's about how many calories you ate. There's people doing great on all fruit. They only eat fruit, and their calories don't usually go sky high like you're suggesting
@@GaryHighFruit CICO is wrong, as are you. You can stay lean while eating a bunch of fruit, yet still damage your body. You’re not a chimpanzee, so quit trying to act like one.
@@GaryHighFruitfruits today are not the same as they were 200 years ago. They are all GMO! Apples, small, hard, bitter. Banana, small, full of seeds. Watermelon, didn't exist. Tomato, the size of a grape. They have been modified to be bigger, sweeter, and have smaller seeds or to look and taste totally different. About as "natural" as eating seed oils loaded with polyunsaturated fats loaded with omaga 6.
Eating only fruit? How can a human survive eating only fruit? No protein! No health fats! Perfect storm for diabetes, heart disease, kidney failure, stroke, and dementia.
@@gener.1253 Oh will you stop repeating this propaganda I've hears for 11 years now.
And GMO is NOT the same as grafting.
The fruits I find in stores where I am are unripe & tasteless, let alone not sweet! How I long for fruits fresh off trees that are succulent, juicy & oh so sweet!
Handy information thankyou. Quite a few 'experts' in utube land telling us even to avoid some vegetables incl potatoes as well because they convert to sugar.
By my observation it has quite same effect. If I eat apples and check my blood sugar after that - it goes up. Maybe little slower than if I eat pure table sugar (I did not test it because I do not eat it anymore). But sugar is sugar.
Absolutely fantastic explanation!!! Thank you!!!
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
Of course fiber buffers sugar. But speaking as someone who consumes no fiber, sugar, processed food, suppliments or anything except meat, water, salt and some dairy, I can confirm this healthy human diet will return all health markers to absolute optimin. Any consumed sugar is toxic to humanity.
Interesting. Many people in the low-carb community say that what I have said is not news. They don’t believe that people like you in their community exist so I’m glad that you’ve made this comment.
Friend of mine gave herself scurvy a while back by staying on Atkins induction for 6 months and not including anything other than meat and cheese. How are you managing this without supplements?
@@marcialitt4431 I have never heard of a person on a carnivour diet getting scurvey. There are many credible carnivour Doctors who regularly podcast on TH-cam who say the same. Such as Dr. Ken Berry, Dr. Anthony Chaffee, Dr. Shawn Baker. I remember seeing a podcast on the subject that pointed out ships officers and captins in days of old rarely got scurvey, just the sailors who were served a terrible diet staple of ships biscuits often full of weavels. (The protien rich weavels may have been the best part.😄). I note you said Atkins diet. The Atkinson diet is not carnivour. It includes a lot of vegitable and will likley not induce ketosis. Ketosis requires little or no cards. There can be many reasons for a vitiman c deficiency. There are many ways to get vitiman c into the body including things like oranges but should not be necessary on carnivour diet. Meat contains vitiman c and the vitiman / mineral requirements differ with different diets.
No, sugar is not necessarily, toxic, and yes, this is coming from a carnivore dieter. You can eat glucose, it's not toxic in healthy people, it's just that it is not optimal. History clearly shows societies not getting sick when they add starches to their diets. It's when they add extracted fructose and honey is when they get sick. Protein and fat are optimal. Fructose is only toxic if you eat it all the time. Fructose is a survival nutrient, without it, we would have never survived. It helped us gain fat to survive the annual winter famine our ancestors has do face, but fructose is toxic if you eat it all the time...
Excellent clear presentation. From a more general perspective I would add that the human packaging of the food is also relevant. I don't consider an organic fruit or vegetable to be "organic" if it is packaged in plastic, the chemicals in which can leach into the fruit or vegetable whether while packaged or after that plastic is put in a landfill.
From what I've seen with my own eyes testing myself with a glucose meter. From what I've seen of others like "Beat Diabetes" on TH-cam, Whole fruit ends up being almost as bad as juiced fruit and just as bad if not worse than candy bars. I've done Beat Diabetes' test with two Hershey's bars verses a banana of similar weight. For someone with any bit of insulin resistance, the banana with its sugar so called trapped in its fiberous cells actually raises sugar higher and longer than two highly processed Hershey milk chocolate bars! So no. Sugary fruit even whole with the pulp and fiber is not healthy for anyone with insulin resistance which is estimated to be 1/3rd of the adult population in the United States. (And yes I understand one of the studies showed hypoglycemia from the fruit juice which was slightly less than the apple sauce and less than the whole apple. But the problem was most of the subjects peaked at 95?!?! I certainly peak at 95 eating pork rinds, or ice cubes but if I ate a decent sized apple, my blood sugar would be 160 to 170 and it would take two or three hours depending on how active I was to get back down to 95. I'm not even a diabetic. I'm just a middle aged man with and an A1C in the mid 5's with a bit of insulin resistance. The test results look like the people were very young athletic college age kids.. I'm sure whole fruit is certainly more healthy for them than juice but I don't think either are healthy for the insulin resistant person.)
Measuring blood glucose after a meal (as shown in the rct study) is not the definitive test for diabetes. Notice that the trial showed the same blood glucose initially. Insulin resistance occurs beneath the surface and 90 minutes later with lower blood sugars actually. It’s not as simple as how high blood sugar is after a certain meal. Look at the study again.
Blood glucose in the ranges certainly contributes to heart disease. It's often overlooked that not only chronically high insulin makes you sick, but also transient high glucose causes immediate damage that needs to be repaired and that repair mechanism is weakened with age. But this is a biased pro cereal channel, so they don't focus on this.
You are correct. Diabetics have no business eating fruit or fructose. It won't help their health.
Yes, but what else are you eating? It's not fruit that causes insulin resistance. It's fat. Especially saturated fat.
@@tanyasydney2235 Yes but that would be the saturated fat sequestered around your midsection and your liver not the saturated fat you are eating per se. Insulin resistance starts when your body reaches it's genetic limit of sequestered fat. It is why some people can develop insulin resistance being only 10 pounds overweight while others can be 40 pounds overweight but still have good insulin sensitivity.
Thanks for making a simple issue so complicated it's not clear what your position is.
It’s not complicated.
Dr Seheult, thank you as always for excellent information. Is the general conclusion that eating whole fruits healthier than eating free sugar, very likely. But we should understand why this might be true and by what mechanism. Unfortunately, with the research discussed here it is difficult to assess what is the mechanism. And the results are inconsistent. It would have been better if you assessed both the pros and cons of the results, not just the pros. One reference here is clearly biased by an author from the Avocado Board.
Too many confounders going on here. I can only give a few examples. For much of this there should be clarification regarding fructose and glucose; very different metabolically. You didn't mention some of the results not in agreement. At 13:26 you say why would the "insulin be higher and it's because there is a huge bolus of sugar", but in fact as shown all sources had the same "huge bolus" at 30 minutes. No difference. Where is the protective slowing effect of all the fiber? The research and plot is, by the way, from a 1977 paper in Lancet. A reasonable alternative interpretation is that the whole apple created the same large bolus and then kept the glucose higher for longer. Also note that insulin is virtually the same for all three once you get to 90 minutes. Why we are to believe that there is a postprandial hypoglycemia that is of concern caused by high insulin when the insulin levels are the same? A graph like this needs to show the 95% confidence limits. The 90 minute glucose is 50, not 45-50, and it would be interesting to know if that data point is a repeatable value considering it looks out of line with the rest of the curve.
At 14:38 you switch to fructose, whereas the previous data is only about glucose. Fructose is an entirely different process that occurs within the liver, doesn't raise blood glucose levels and doesn't raise insulin.
At 14:58 that study seems pretty weak. It is an association only. There is no data on the amount of sugar consumed. How to explain that the increase of three servings per day of total fruit and vegetable consumption did not have an association?
Note from plots at 19:05, there was no difference between supplemented fiber and high fiber from diet. That discounts the concept that the whole fruit plant fiber is protecting us from a bolus of sugar. The supplemented fiber is working just as well. Note also that there was no difference in insulin response for the three diets. From the paper "Postprandial insulin increased after all of the meal tests, but there was no difference between their iAUCs."
The other studies also address supplemented fiber (unripe bananas). Even the conclusion from Devor talks about the "natural sugar found in whole fruits is bound to fiber". But supplemented fiber is not bound to sugars.
An association between "eating more whole fruits" should also be considered in the context of what is not being eaten. The health benefit could be because they are eating less fried food and seed oils.
This is great information. I've suspected it for a while. I don't blend a smoothie to death - I just stir it. But, I know people who eat a lot fruit who are still thin. Look at Jack LeLane. He ate a lot of fruit - whole fruit.
After many years of trying, my wife finally encouraged me to eat fresh fruit twice a day. Looks like she was right.
They are always right. 😜
THAT'S True Love!❤😂
listen to your body and not your wife...they never mean well, the fruit did not bring any good even in paradise hahaha
MedCram is a good channel, but this video is blatantly wrong.
Slowing absorption with fiber doesn't reduce the total load placed on the body by the sugar content of the apple or piece of fruit.
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
Very important info, thank you!
Doc, you are already headed in the wrong direction, respectfully. The fiberbin fruit is great if we are talking "gut".. meaning that a whole fruit is better than "juicing". Also there are good components of fruits and vegetables, yes..such as beta carotene. However, there are c a few problems. #1...today's grocery store fruit is "Franken fruit" bred and modified to be full of way more sugar. #2...the liver processes fructose the same way it processes alcohol and even more shocking...will NOT register on an HBA1C. I used to be T2 diabetic. I reversed my diabetes going low carb and even zero carb, which I eat about 70% of the time. I know diabetics who claim they eat so healthy that they have 3 or 4 fruits a day...well, they all still use insulin. Others who have followed my way of eating in my small town ALL REVERSED their diabetes and take no insulin. In addition, our HBA1C all improved from the 11's, 7's or so down to 5.1 or 4.8...whole fruit is still much better than juice or soda...bit in the end it boils down to the same end result. I've come off of an embarrassing 12 prescribed meds at age 51 and reversed not only diabetes and fibromyalgia and hypothyroidism but lymphedema. Your key words here doc..."whole, NATURAL fruit"...the problem is our fruits are nothing today like they were during our human evolution. An apple, better than a snickers bar but still not ideal. I avoid fruit because I test my blood sugar 4 times a day and see how even a fibrous whole apple spikes it. I love your channel...ya just got this wrong. Also...my IBD and reflux are back instantly with fruit or most veggies.
Thanks for the note.more to come…
MedCram is a good channel, but this video is blatantly wrong.
Slowing absorption with fiber doesn't reduce the total load placed on the body by the sugar content of the apple or piece of fruit.
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
👍👍👍MEDCRAM IS THE BEST, JUST NO OTHERS CAN COME CLOSE. 🥰
Dr Seheult, please also do a video on calcium supplement that is forever popular over the counter, added in soy milk, beverages, shelf foods & so very often prescribed or advised by family doctors.
Great suggestion!
MedCram is a good channel, but this video is blatantly wrong.
Slowing absorption with fiber doesn't reduce the total load placed on the body by the sugar content of the apple or piece of fruit.
In the video, "Low Carb Diet: Fat or Fiction? Does it work?" from the Australian broadcaster ABC (posted 8 years ago, with over 4 million views)
Professor of Endocrinology Katherine Samaras (Diabetes & Obesity, St Vincent's Hospital) disagrees from 23:00-25:30, stating in her reply to the question,
"What's wrong with replacing these carbohydrates with low GI (glycemic index) CHO?'
Dr Samaras reply: "Low GI carbohydrate just refers to how quickly the glucose is released into the bloodstream, but the load, the total amount of CHO still has to be dealt with.
In diabetes research we are understanding more and more that you can wear out the pancreas by getting it to work extra hard, and so in that regard, the load of the CHO actually counts. The GI may actually just blunt the glucose excursion after people eat, but it's still asking the pancreas to work extra hard, and so lowering the GI (without lowering the glucose dose equivalent), doesn't necessarily make the best outcomes."
end of excerpt, at 25:33 of the video
I gave up fruit and don’t miss it at all. Started eating meat and love it so much.
So my old school teacher that forced us to chew every bite 32 times were wrong? I should just crunch down and swallow?
Chewing is very important. She was right. Chewing won’t open those small chambers. Juicing does.
This is what I’ve always said thanks for confirming it.
Cheers
Excellent presentation, thank you. Very enlightening.