15 replies to this topic

[Mynona]

I eat "much" berries, and some fruit every day.

The berries are:
- blueberries
- sea buckthorne
- lingonberries
- sometimes cranberries when store is out oh sea buckthorne

The fruit I eat (besides avocado):
- oranges
- lemon (a slice on my dinner)
- kiwi
- red organic grapes which I switched for 5 cl wine or alcohol free red wine due to the sugar and that it seems wine has more grapes per 100 grams. I can't take too much alcohol, so I was glad to find good alcohol free wine (the regular store had ones with MUCH added sugar, but I found at the alcohol store [government has monopoly on selling alcohol in my country, so just one government owned store chain sells stronger than 3,5 % alcohol beer]). I will drink the alcohol one at special occasions...

But I wonder, what fruits are best, and why? I understand low sugar and GI are good, but how to find what fruits has the best vitamin and mineral status?

Cherries and peach has low sugar and GI (in a list I checked). But what about the rest of their nutrition?

I would be happy to see a list of good fruits for paleoish-CR dieters. With a table of nutrition or motivation on why they are good, not just "eat this".

I read someone talking about cantaloupe, are they better than other melons? They are the most expensive ones in my store. Too expensive sadly enough. 4 times the orange price and double compared to other melons.

I eat my berries, and want to add one fruit per day. Therefore I search for the best ones. Feel free to help me ^_^

[Mynona]

I may add that apples and pears gives me IBS/Colon irritable, I get bloated from them. So I will not eat those.

[lietosanabaltija]

Hej Mynona hur mår du?

On topic, you could check out a concept called "ORAC", which is the basis for my daily fruits/vegetables purchases.

Basically, the higher the ORAC value, the more the fruit/vegetable contains antioxidants. Most berries are among the top of the list.

ORACvalues.com is the website I most often use.

[Mynona]

Hej Mynona hur mår du?

Rätt ok :] Lite problem med magen, troligen p.g.a. chlorella, greenspulver och kefir som jag nu gjort uppehåll med.

On topic, you could check out a concept called "ORAC", which is the basis for my daily fruits/vegetables purchases.

Basically, the higher the ORAC value, the more the fruit/vegetable contains antioxidants. Most berries are among the top of the list.

ORACvalues.com is the website I most often use.

But what about vitamins and minerals? And amount of sugar and the fruits GI? Or is it mostly the antioxidant one wants from the fruits?

I'll check that site

Berries are expensive, so I have saved all empty sour cream pots and so on, to collect blueberries this summer (to put in my freezer box), and bought some sea buckthorne bushes for my garden. Will buy aronia too, and cranberries if it's possible. I have my own forest/woods :D and a very big garden [lantbruksfastighet...]. Lingonberries I do not find very much, but they aren't the most expensive ones.

I read Acai has high orac, but it's so expensive that one has to eat as little that cheaper berries with lower orac would give more antioxidants in the end...

But also, orac does only tell how much antioxidant in the berry/fruit? Some antioxidants are better than others, and we need to get not just one of them if I've understood correctly.

Edited by Mynona, 14 April 2012 - 05:45 PM.

[TheFountain]

But what about vitamins and minerals? And amount of sugar and the fruits GI? Or is it mostly the antioxidant one wants from the fruits?

I think it might be more valuable to look at the glycemic load than the sugar content, unless it's fructose you are thinking of. There is a list of low fructose, high nutrient/polyphenol fruits such as Plums, Grapes (high vitamin K) and of course berries. I still think banana's are valuable for potassium, and they too are low in fructose. Anyway, if the majority of the sugar content is glucose it should give a much slower rise in blood sugar than the more controversial fructose would.

[1kgcoffee]

Berries are definitely best. But eat whatever fruit you want. Just balance the sugar laden ones, such as pinneapple, with greens (kale, spinach, cilantro, etc) to reduce the glycemic load and increase nutrient content. Have you heard of green smoothies?

[Brett Black]

I think it might be more valuable to look at the glycemic load than the sugar content, unless it's fructose you are thinking of. There is a list of low fructose, high nutrient/polyphenol fruits such as Plums, Grapes (high vitamin K) and of course berries. I still think banana's are valuable for potassium, and they too are low in fructose. Anyway, if the majority of the sugar content is glucose it should give a much slower rise in blood sugar than the more controversial fructose would.

Actually it's the other way around. Fructose has a very low glycemic index(~20); much lower than glucose(~100.)

[TheFountain]

I think it might be more valuable to look at the glycemic load than the sugar content, unless it's fructose you are thinking of. There is a list of low fructose, high nutrient/polyphenol fruits such as Plums, Grapes (high vitamin K) and of course berries. I still think banana's are valuable for potassium, and they too are low in fructose. Anyway, if the majority of the sugar content is glucose it should give a much slower rise in blood sugar than the more controversial fructose would.

Actually it's the other way around. Fructose has a very low glycemic index(~20); much lower than glucose(~100.)

But when looking at the GI of fruits that are higher in fructose, such as Figs (GI of 61), vs fruits that are lower in fructose, such as Grapes (GI of 43) it shows a different picture.

Maybe because of liver metabolism slowing things down?

[Brett Black]

But when looking at the GI of fruits that are higher in fructose, such as Figs (GI of 61), vs fruits that are lower in fructose, such as Grapes (GI of 43) it shows a different picture.

Really? I hadn't heard that before. Do you have a source or analysis to show that this is the case?

Using the upper and lower extremes of fructose:glucose ratio in fruits listed here:
http://en.wikipedia....se#Food_sources

and the glycemic index values from here(I may have missed some):
http://www.glycemici.../foodSearch.php

I made this table:

_________Fructose:Glucose__GI Range__Mid-GI_
APPLE_________2.0________28-44_____36___
PEAR__________2.1________33-42_____38___
APRICOT_______0.7________34-57_____46___
PLUM__________0.66_______24-53_____39___


At least with this small example, the reported GI is actually lower in the fruit with higher fructose content. The difference is negligible though, particularly when one considers the range of measured glycemic index values and the natural variations that will occur in both fruit and human.

Edited by Brett Black, 04 May 2012 - 03:01 AM.

[Mynona]

Thank you all. I will use the GI search site (and the ones about ORAC of course).

Seems one should try to match GI and ORAC, and of course, not too "refined" (if that's the word when I try to describe for example a modern apple with low content of most than sugar, compared to the old wild ones that is the opposite. Some fruits have more of the "modern refined problem" than others I think).

[niner]

The glycemic index/load is probably more affected by the amount of fiber or other substances affecting the absorption of sugars than by the fructose/glucose ratio. Since GI is defined by the amount of glucose in your blood, I guess the fructose sneaks through the assay anyway. The reason some people don't like to eat fructose is because it has been reported as having a higher potential for glycation than glucose. In excessive quantities, fructose can cause metabolic problems to the extent that pediatric endocrinologist Robert Lustig calls it a "metabolic poison". When it's delivered in the form of a solution in soda (or fruit juice), I think he's correct. I don't think that he advises against eating solid fruit.

[TheFountain]

But when looking at the GI of fruits that are higher in fructose, such as Figs (GI of 61), vs fruits that are lower in fructose, such as Grapes (GI of 43) it shows a different picture.

Really? I hadn't heard that before. Do you have a source or analysis to show that this is the case?

Using the upper and lower extremes of fructose:glucose ratio in fruits listed here:
http://en.wikipedia....se#Food_sources

and the glycemic index values from here(I may have missed some):
http://www.glycemici.../foodSearch.php

I made this table:

_________Fructose:Glucose__GI Range__Mid-GI_
APPLE_________2.0________28-44_____36___
PEAR__________2.1________33-42_____38___
APRICOT_______0.7________34-57_____46___
PLUM__________0.66_______24-53_____39___


At least with this small example, the reported GI is actually lower in the fruit with higher fructose content. The difference is negligible though, particularly when one considers the range of measured glycemic index values and the natural variations that will occur in both fruit and human.

Interesting. It seems that charts are all over the place, but as niner said the issue is more complicated and involves a consideration of glycation end products. If you're eating fruit that raises the glycemic inddex a bit more than other fruits but the other fruits are causing your hemoglobin to hold on a little longer to the sugar for some reason it could result in a higher A1C score. Well that's my understanding from what i'm getting here. But as many have said whole fruit in reasonable quantities is probably nothing to alarm oneself about. I stick with the ones I mentioned and don't gain any body fat apparently. Personal experimentation is important.

[Michael]

Using the upper and lower extremes of fructose:glucose ratio in fruits listed here:
http://en.wikipedia....se#Food_sources

and the glycemic index values from here(I may have missed some):
http://www.glycemici.../foodSearch.php

I made this table:

_________Fructose:Glucose__GI Range__Mid-GI_
APPLE_________2.0________28-44_____36___
PEAR__________2.1________33-42_____38___
APRICOT_______0.7________34-57_____46___
PLUM__________0.66_______24-53_____39___


At least with this small example, the reported GI is actually lower in the fruit with higher fructose content. The difference is negligible though, particularly when one considers the range of measured glycemic index values and the natural variations that will occur in both fruit and human.

In fact, I'd put it more strongly than that. I've crunched a similar small arbitrary sample in the past, and from what I found the GI of most foods -- except for grains, but certainly for fruits -- can be predicted almost perfectly by looking at their balnce of sugars (including as components of longer-chain carbs (disaccharides, starch)), with no reference to its fiber content. I didn't do this with the ratios, however, but by multiplying the GI of each constituent sugar by the percentage of that sugar that is present in the food. I therefore found very little evidence that fiber changes fructose or other sugar metabolism by retarding its uptake into the liver from the GI, except in a very small number of cases.

I'd also not use that Wikipedia table, which seems to be inaccurate: I'd instead recommend the USDA food composition database (you have to click on "Full Report") and teh NUTTAB 2010 Online Searchable Database from Food Standards Australia/New Zealand. Maybe we could organize a group of volunteers to divvy up a large sample and crunch numbers ...?

[Brett Black]

Maybe we could organize a group of volunteers to divvy up a large sample and crunch numbers ...?

For what purpose?

As far as fructose and glycemic index go, I'm not convinced there's sufficient evidence of net detrimental effect(with maybe some exceptions e.g. unusually high fructose intake or pre-existing insulin resistance) to be concerned about them.

[kismet]

Huh? The evidence on GI/GL is very solid compared to fructose research. Massive epidemiology, many RCTs on risk factors (though, most are in "unhealthy" people), etc.

But I am also not sure what MR wants to crunch exactly, presumably, he wants to see whether there are fruits that have a GI that is below the calculated & predicted GI?

e.g.:

[1] Arch Intern Med. 2009 Apr 13;169(7):659-69.
A systematic review of the evidence supporting a causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease. Mente et al.
[2] Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Jan;87(1):258S-268S.
Glycemic response and health--a systematic review and meta-analysis: relations between dietary glycemic properties and health outcomes. Livesey G, Taylor R, Hulshof T, Howlett J.
http://www.ajcn.org/.../full/87/1/258S
[3] Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):627-37.
Glycemic index, glycemic load, and chronic disease risk--a meta-analysis of observational studies. Barclay et al.
http://www.ajcn.org/...tract/87/3/627g

Edited by kismet, 02 July 2012 - 08:02 PM.

[Carroll]

Fresh fruits are very good for the health.
These fruits provide all natural vitamins, fiber, mineral, nutrition, and calcium etc.
The more effective fruits for the health are apple, orange, grapefruit, berries, grapes, and banana etc.