are there any fruits that are bad for weightloss? i have a sweet

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/fruit-is-fuelling-the-obesity-epidemic/

Fruit = carbs = sugar = insulin = fat synthesis and storage

Fruit, not even once

>>42303022

Certain fruits like bananas, dates, and most dried fruits are pretty calorie dense. Most other fruits don't have many calories.

>>42303074

Nothing about this is scientifically accurate

>>42303074

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603544/

>Weight loss diets often recommend targeted restriction of either carbohydrates or fat. While low fat diets were popular in the latter part of the 20th century, carbohydrate restriction has regained popularity in recent years with proponents claiming that the resulting decreased insulin secretion causes elevated release of free-fatty acids from adipose tissue, increased fat oxidation and energy expenditure, and greater body fat loss than restriction of dietary fat (Ludwig and Friedman, 2014; Taubes, 2007, 2011; Westman et al., 2007)

>The experimental diets were designed such that they were 30% lower in calories than the baseline diet (Table 2) and the reduced carbohydrate (RC) and reduced fat (RF) diets led to selective reductions in carbohydrate intake, and fat intake, respectively, whereas protein intake was practically unchanged from baseline
>Note also that the RF diet did not have a decrease in sugar content compared to baseline (Table 2). This was important since a decrease in sugar content with the RF diet would be expected to decrease insulin secretion despite no change in total carbohydrate content compared to baseline. As a result, only the RC diet resulted in a 22.3±7.0% decrease in daily insulin secretion (p=0.001)
> Therefore, the experimental reduced-energy diets resulted in substantial differences in insulin secretion despite being isocaloric.
Result:
>This study demonstrated that, calorie for calorie, restriction of dietary fat led to greater body fat loss than restriction of dietary carbohydrate in adults with obesity. This occurred despite the fact that only the carbohydrate restricted diet led to decreased insulin secretion and a substantial sustained increase in net fat oxidation compared to the baseline energy-balanced diet.

>>42303074
But fibers in fruit slows down the sugar absorption.
>insulin spikes not so much.

>>42303309
> 19 people
> 6 days
> 140g of carbs (37g sugar) = 'low carb'
Still, it is a proper clinical study, and the results shouldn't be dismissed. Although the low carb proponents will most likely latch on to the points I meme arrowed.

>>42303434

That's about as many people and as long a time as you would need for this kind of study, and the fat restricting diet had 170g of sugar. If the claim is that carbs prevent fat loss by raising insulin levels, that isn't true.

>>42303022
fruits are MAXIMUM 10% fructose. the rest is water and carbs.

if you're worried about sugar just avoid dried fruits (less water = high % sugars by weight) and fruit juices (as they're sweetened by concentrates, and this doesn't need to be listed in the nutritional info panel)

>>42303451
My main issue is that there are plenty of such studies with all kinds of results.
This is a clinical trial with 24 people over 8 weeks, and they found no difference between low fat and low carbs.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2780863/
A meta-study of 2700 people showed slightly more weight loss (by 3.2kg) on low carb diets:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3530364/
A one year study of 120 people again showd greater weight loss in the low carb group. Granted, this study wasn't as strict as the others.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
So in the end, I can't just take one study and run with it as the gospel truth. There's obviously more going on than simply carbs vs fats, since they seem to get contradictory results, so they must be missing some variables that they aren't controlling for.

>>42303511

All three of these are much less controlled than the other study, which is why that study lasted 6 days. You can't run a study for 8+ weeks where the participants are made to stay in the lab that whole time. The most controlled of those three links is the first one where they provided their participants with the foods they intended for them to eat and hoped that everyone only ate those foods during the course of the study, and yeah they found no significant difference. The other studies are basically "eat whatever you want and try to stick to these loose paramaters" that inevitably means the "low fat" diet is made of junk food which results in more calories eaten. That's very different from making a claim about insulin from eating carbs preventing fat loss.

>>42303074
This is beyond retarded