There is almost nothing in fruit worth taking. Especially not a tremendous amount of sugar. One apple can have amounts of sugar similar to Coca-Cola. Furthermore, a lot of it is fructose, which is basically a poison to the body. The sole purpose of human adaptations to fruit seems to be fattening, which makes evolutionary sense for survival in the time of scarcity, but not when you have food in abundance all the time. Note that it's also true that todays fruit is 'weaponized' by long-lasting preference to sugary variants so it contains much more sugar then in historic times and a lot less of other things like vitamins and minerals.
One other important reason is that such amount of sugar will block vitamin C as they are absorbed via the same mechanism (GLUT2). Blocking vitamin C absorption leads to all sorts of bad things, slowly, like lower immunity, higher cholesterol, fragile blood vessels.
The third important aspect is cancer feeding (which mostly relies on sugar, so even though the body makes it, you certainly do not have to ignite it) and effects on insulin which dysfunction is tied to both cancer and diabetes.
You should replace them with vegetables.
As a personal anecdote, my family and I almost never eat fruit (in last 20 years or so) - at most a couple of times per year. We all seem very healthy.
There is plenty of good stuff in fruits other than sugar. They are a great source of fiber and vitamin C, for example. Your overall point is worth reiterating, which is that fruits are not automatically "healthy", and may contain large amounts of calories and sugar.
No, there is not. Apart from some berries (particularly raspberry and blueberry) most of it is junk food that makes you fat, rises triglyceride and damages the liver.
Fruit is not a great source of vitamin C for the reason I mentioned. Red paprika is way better source for example, then any fruit. You better take a supplement too, liposomal variant if possible and/or film tablets.
You can get fiber from other, way more healthy foods, like quinoa seeds. Many people also remove fibers by juicing fruit, which is particularly unhealthy.
The fact that other foods can supplement or replace fruits is obvious. Most humans, however, are not surviving on quinoa and vitamin supplements. Therefore, your extreme position on fruits is misguided, because the average person is better off having a glass of orange juice than Coke, despite the calories being similar.
You were the one comparing apples to Coke. You also wrote this clearly incorrect statement: "There is almost nothing in fruit worth taking". When I pointed out that this is not the case, you misdirected the conversation to saying that other foods are equally or more nutritious than fruits.
Almost nothing worth taking that you can't get elsewhere, without all the junk. It's clearly true even for junk drinks - they usually have some low amounts of junk form of vitamins in them, but that is typically not why you drink them and you can find much better forms in higher dosages elsewhere, without the junk.
It's also logical. GLUT2 is a passive transporter and relies on diffusion. You will always have a bunch more glucose than vitamin C, so it will outcompete it.
The same transporter is used for both, as they are very similar - GULO gene transforms glucose to C.
There is a special C transporter SVCT1/2, a pump, that that doesn't suffer from this, but requires Mg/Ca for activation and is a lot less distributed than GLUT2. But then, eating modern fruit simple doesn't have much of it, and even that is lost around the conditions used. That's why no animal on the planet delegated vitamin C production to the plants, the amounts are far from enough for satisfactory workings of the body (except us, GULO mutants), alas high enough so you don't disintegrate (scurvy).
This might be one of the reasons why sugar diminishes the immunity (to be more precise, phagocytic index
) by around 50% several hours after eating it. Don't ask for study, there is Google Schoolar et al.
> your intake on fruit seem quite extreme
That means nothing to me nor anybody seriously researching this stuff. I rely on interpreting science documents. My or researcher interpretations might be wrong, but it's still the best we know so far. Contrary to that, unquantifiable "advices" like don't be extreme or that of moderation are best to left unsaid and all it does is tell me that person simply doesn't know anything about the topic and should be completely ignored.
> unquantifiable "advices" like don't be extreme or that of moderation are best to left unsaid
That wasn't meant to be advice, just my general, nonprofessional, take on nutrition recommendation until I am convinced otherwise. Which I gladly am, because I find human biology (esp. the metabolism) more and more interesting the more I know about it.
I only remember reading that vitamin c in its ascorbic acid form is the predominant way it is transported into the cells (by SVCT1,2 pathways) and DHA transports contribute only a way minor amount.
> This might be one of the reasons why sugar diminishes the immunity by around 50% several hours after eating it
Interesting, I'll try to find some reading material about that.
DHA is valuable transport since it doesn't require prerequisites and is ubiquitous, also SVCT doesn't transport DHA which you have tones of given that C is among other things ROS scavenger. Can't remember now the details, but I remember reading a paper where it was determined that DHA transport is substantial. Logically fallows that if you have to recycle C, its all you got, since you can't produce C.
Regarding immunity claim, here is something to get you started (50% claim):
> Oral 100-g portions of carbohydrate from glucose, fructose, sucrose, honey, or orange juice all significantly decreased the capacity of neutrophils to engulf bacteria as measured by the slide technique.
There is almost nothing in fruit worth taking. Especially not a tremendous amount of sugar. One apple can have amounts of sugar similar to Coca-Cola. Furthermore, a lot of it is fructose, which is basically a poison to the body. The sole purpose of human adaptations to fruit seems to be fattening, which makes evolutionary sense for survival in the time of scarcity, but not when you have food in abundance all the time. Note that it's also true that todays fruit is 'weaponized' by long-lasting preference to sugary variants so it contains much more sugar then in historic times and a lot less of other things like vitamins and minerals.
One other important reason is that such amount of sugar will block vitamin C as they are absorbed via the same mechanism (GLUT2). Blocking vitamin C absorption leads to all sorts of bad things, slowly, like lower immunity, higher cholesterol, fragile blood vessels.
The third important aspect is cancer feeding (which mostly relies on sugar, so even though the body makes it, you certainly do not have to ignite it) and effects on insulin which dysfunction is tied to both cancer and diabetes.
You should replace them with vegetables.
As a personal anecdote, my family and I almost never eat fruit (in last 20 years or so) - at most a couple of times per year. We all seem very healthy.