Fruitarian diet

Hey man I'm not a registered dietician or anything but I'd be careful about that diet if I were you. I get that fruit has a lot of fiver and nutrients and is low cal but that's still like a shit ton of sugar (especially if you're doing the "official" kind of fruitarianism where your diet is 75% or more fruit, that's waaaay too much sugar.) you should try vegetables instead of you want a plant based diet, they have all the nutrients and stuff of fruit but won't mess you up with all that sugar. I knew a guy, really fat, decided to go fruit-based and he lost a ton of weight but he got diabetes in just two years. Almost his whole life eating shit food but eating too much fruit for two years pushed him over the edge and so he was skinny with type two diabetes because of fruitarianism. Idk how long you plan to be on this diet but it's something to think about because a diet ultra high in sugar causes a ton of problems no matter where the sugar comes from unfortunately.

>>38769298
The diabetes thing has been one of my concerns actually, you sound pretty well clued up

File: 1473497699959.gif (266KB, 480x270px)

266KB, 480x270px

Lots of sweet fruit makes my boyfriends cum taste sweet

>>38769244
I eat a lot of fruit and I'm vegan but I wouldn't recommend a Fruitarian diet.

>>38769244
Most fruit falls in the 4-8% range on protein, so you're really going to have to find it hard in whatever else you're eating, you better get some green veggies in there too. Unless you're eating coconuts and avocados regularly, you're not likely to get enough fat from fruit to maintain your body's basic fat needs.

Being healthy on a vegan diet is pretty easy. My breakfast is often just fruit. I frequently get some fruit with lunch. But fruitarian makes it hard for your body to get everything it needs - and I've only addressed the macros. There's a bunch of micronutrients that are easier to get from other plant sources than fruit.

File: 1473020582204.png (943KB, 956x856px) Image search: [Google]

943KB, 956x856px

Veganism is stupid enough, but why anybody would go on an even worse subset fad diet like all raw or fruititarian makes zero sense. You're putting yourself at so much risk of a deficiency, and even if you plan your diet well enough to not have a deficiency, you're still going to end up with severe health effects like liver damage, insulin resistance, pancreatic damage, and damaged teeth.

>>38769298

>I get that fruit has a lot of fiver and nutrients and is low cal but that's still like a shit ton of sugar

The sugar in fruit is the last thing to be concerned about. Sugar in whole fruits isn't associated with health problems.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/

>The WHO guideline does not refer to the sugars in fresh fruits and vegetables, and sugars naturally present in milk, because there is no reported evidence of adverse effects of consuming these sugars.

You can run into vitamin and mineral deficiencies if your diet is all fruit though

Man I got hit on by a fruitarian once.

I was in really good shape cause I was a wrestler and I was 17. She wasagbe 24? Anyway she kept describing in vivid detail how she wanted to only eat 'phallic fruit'. 17 year old me wasn't ready for her kind of weird.

Now, only two years later, I'd totally fuck her kind of weird.

>>38769298
fruit actually lowers the risk of diabetes you dumbfuck literally no one ever got diabetes off of fruit

>>38771484
>Veganism is stupid enough
Eating our natural diet is stupid?

I'm sure the girls you're fucking love that you have to keep taking a breath because of your clogged arteries.

>>38774386
>natural diet
>vegetarian

Bitch our diet is game meat, nuts, berries and tubers. Have you even read Paleo-diets?

>>38774386
Nice bait there bud. Considering you have to get your food brought over to you from around the globe and would have died from malnutrition if it weren't for supermarkets that hold lentils from villages in East Asia and leafy greens from Europe. The fact that it would be impossible for you to stay vegan in our natural environment is plenty of evidence enough that humans are made to eat meat.

File: A_sheep_in_the_long_grass.jpg (305KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1920x1280px

>starting diabetes

>>38774386
Nice bait breh.

Eat a lot of fruit but still include other foods to get in your essentials nutrients

>>38772920
Are they not referring to sensible portion sizes? To be able to say anything statistically meaningful about fruitarian-level quantities, you need additional data from big enough fruitarian populations. Moreover, there's theoretical reason why humans aren't fit for such a sucrosey diet, like the decrease and increase in phosphofructokinase and amylase repeats relative to modern day frugivorous primates, respectfully.

>>38774526
Fruit doesn't give you beetus

Pure sugar and animal products do

File: 1468789965052.gif (81KB, 182x249px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 182x249px

>>38776905
>animal products do

Kek.

>>38777135
There's a reason diabetics aren't recommended to eat meat diary or eggs above a small amount

Plants don't have that problem tho

>>38777209
Why?
Explain.

>>38777261
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942738/

>>38777379
>Not that goy
Interesting results, although one study is not enough to convince me of this. This requires further analysis.

>>38777209
I've never seen a single doctor recommend limiting meat or dairy, aside from milk due to the lactose.

>>38777737
Not all doctors are nutritionists.

>>38776200

>To be able to say anything statistically meaningful about fruitarian-level quantities, you need additional data from big enough fruitarian populations.

That would be nice, but still. If there's no evidence of sugars in fruits causing health problems, then it's very unlikely that a diet based on fruit would cause health problems due to the sugar content. If the things that make refined sugars bad for us aren't true for whole fruits, I don't see a cause for concern about its sugar. It's like how diets based on starchy whole grains are good for us, even though refined starch is bad for you.

>>38774449
>>38774608
>>38774507
Nice claws and teeth you have there, very good for catching wild animals and tearing through their raw flesh.

Oh wait, your digestive system is not like a meat-eater, and you run a high risk of getting sick by eating raw meat.

It's quite obvious your natural diet is meant to be like that of other apes, almost entirely fruit, nuts/seeds, vegetation, and bugs or very small animals like lizards.

Personally I'm a Christian and think God intended for us to eat animals, but I don't think you're naturally designed to eat meat.

>>38778023

>implying the occasional bug provided enough protein of massive brain growth in human ancestors

>>38778063
>meat made humans as smart as they are

Funny joke.

>>38776200

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-fruit-is-too-much/

>>38774449
We didn't eat meat during paleo. It's neolithic, retard. And we ate it out of convenience, not necessity.

Look op sweet natural living on youtube.

They have a ton of very good vids explaining all the ins and outs of eating only fruits.

>>38769244
You're going to get pancreatic cancer

>>38769298
>He thinks sugar/carbohydrates, an essential macro-nutrient, is bad for you

KEK

>>38777943
> If there's no evidence of sugars in fruits causing health problems, then it's very unlikely that a diet based on fruit would cause health problems due to the sugar content.
Don't know how you could objectively assign likelihood to absence of evidence / evidence of absence statements or even what you'd deem evidence here. There are some low level biochemistry arguments looking at the total capacity of fructose metabolism. Food matrix can't modify this too much.

> If the things that make refined sugars bad for us aren't true for whole fruits, I don't see a cause for concern about its sugar.
Not convinced the antecedent has been sufficiently investigated in humans to declare it can healthfully comprise the bulk of caloric requirement, unlike unrefined starch, where there are mountains and mountains of data. Just being conservative.

>>38778156
Many of the articles he looks at have major caveats and don't really answer the question posed. Take Sievenpiper el al. for example. Ignoring the questionable COIs of several authors ("The Coca-Cola Sugar Advisory Board", "Pepsi Company", "California Strawberry Commission", etc), what met inclusion criteria and supported their conclusion was done on obese and diabetic individuals. In this context, hepatic ATP depletion and consequent AMPK activation from fructose powder might be beneficial (as metformin is), with some obvious potential side effects. The one that didn't used nonobese children and teenagers while showing no benefits and trended towards increased fasting glucose and triglycerides in the high fructose group.

>>38769244
wheres ur protein faget