"The medical profession thinks fructose is better for diabetics than sugar," says Meira Field, Ph.D., a research chemist at United States
Department of Agriculture, "but every cell in the body can
metabolize glucose. However, all fructose must be metabolized in the
liver. The livers of the rats on the high fructose diet looked like the
livers of alcoholics, plugged with fat and cirrhotic."
While a few other tissues (e.g., sperm cells
and some intestinal cells) do use fructose directly, fructose is almost
entirely metabolized in the liver.
"When fructose reaches the liver," says Dr. William J. Whelan, a biochemist at the University of Miami School of Medicine, "the liver
goes bananas and stops everything else to metabolize the fructose."
Eating fructose instead of glucose results in lower circulating insulin
levels, and higher of ghrelin levels after the meal.
Since leptin and insulin decrease appetite and ghrelin increases
appetite, some researchers suspect that eating large amounts of fructose
increases the likelihood of weight gain.
Can I continue on 811 diet?
haha this is a wicked post :)
It confuses me a lot when people try to claim that eating fruit causes fatty liver disease. Come on... do THEY even believe what they are saying? lol
Find me ONE 30bad member who got fatty liver disease while on this diet o.O
It actually strikes me as being even more absurd than the "fruit makes you fat" thing, to which I always say "ok then, that's fine... find me one single fat 30bad member." xD
yeah totally :)
I don't understand how anyone can say "fruit gives you fatty liver disease" with a straight face lol ^^
Additionally I apologize for the slight thread necromancy here (raising a thread from the dead!)
It's just something that came up heavily with another vegan guy who follows the mcdougall diet, and believes fruit to be something to be avoided. So other than both believing in high carb, low fat approaches, we totally disagreed on the correct foods to do this with!
No, I'm not speaking of any real individual. I'm just pointing out a logical fallacy, an argument that in my humblest of opinions is weak and should thus not be used to promote the lifestyle. I want strong arguments for the causes I support, so whenever I see a weak one, I try to improve it and point out its weaknesses. It's one of the ways in which I support the causes I believe in.
The following is purely an attempt to explain a logical fallacy in order to improve the arguments for 80/10/10, purely a discussion on argumentation techniques and contains no opinions of any kind on the 80/10/10 diet itself (which I love).
The logical fallacy of the "show me the long-term lfrv who..." is in that if there was someone who for whatever reason could not make the lifestyle work for him/herself, however perfectly implemented, s/he would not stick around long enough to become a long-termer. Thus all long-termers are by definition successful, and don't have whatever it is you're refuting - dental health, fitness, bodyfat, liver enzymes, whatever.
It's like running IQ tests on CERN staff to find out if they are intelligent. They are, because those who weren't intelligent enough didn't make it to CERN.
Plain and simple.
Kind of... but I wouldn't say it's completely true o.O
If fructose harmed the liver in any way then a very large number of people would have liver issues on high fruit diets (even when their fat intake, etc, is low), because we all have pretty much the same liver biology. The fact that SO many people on 30bad have no liver issues (and certainly aren't all walking around with fatty liver AFAIK) disproves it for me...
Well, that and the fact that it just SOUNDS preposterous before you've even done any research into it doesn't it really? xD Anyone with half a brain cell can see it makes very little sense!