Much has been written on dietary simple sugar. It's controversial, so I can understand why the author may have skirted the topic. I thought the bit about tooth decay in chimps was a good hint that there are probably _some_ health effects.
I think what's interesting about this article is that one common bit of advice about limiting dietary sugar is that there's a big difference in the rate of absorption of simple sugar between fruit juice and raw fruit because the fiber content of raw fruit offers a natural means of limiting the rate of simple sugar absorption. But, if we are breeding extremely sweet fruit, it's a reasonable hypothesis that if such a "natural balance" of fiber and fructose exists, perhaps it has been undermined.
It is reasonable to presume that balance has been undermined. In general "eat your fruit and veggies" should probably be modified to "eat your veggies", which generally have fiber and better nutrient density, without the unnecessary sugar. Modern fruit really is basically plant candy. And sure, that's better than actual candy or junk food, but I no longer think it is really scientifically tenable to call most fruit "healthy".
by 'most', do you mean by those grown/consumed or by variety? because there's a vast array of fruits incl. savory (cucumber, tomatoes, avocado) as well as less common - soursop, cherimoya, mulberry, jackfruit, durian, so much more beyond the fructose bombs.
" but I no longer think it is really scientifically tenable to call most fruit "healthy"."
This doesn't appear to be even slightly tenable. The amount of sugar one consumes in a normal serving of fruit if not added to the massive amount we actually consume wouldn't be even slightly unhealthy.
Saying fruit isn't "healthy" doesn't mean it is unhealthy, there are plenty of neutral things here. But if you are treating fruits and veggies as the same (e.g. X servings of fruits and veggies), generally, anyone making X be 100% fruit is likely going to be less healthy than anyone making X be 100% veggies. And since all fruits do contain a lot of sugar (EDIT: and thus calories, which generally we already get too much of today), you should indeed moderate your consumption of fruits.
It is very hard, by contrast, to say a person can eat "too much veggies", unless they are doing something crazy like eating extreme amounts of the same greens high in oxalates or something.
Basically, enjoy a fruit or two a day, if you like them. Or don't. But you aren't "eating healthy" just because you eat a lot of fruit, nor are you eating unhealthily if you eat zero fruit.
A healthy diet has always had a range of components. Insofar as you are eating a normal healthy amount fruit is healthy not neutral even with a higher sugar content you won't get an overdose of sugar just from any reasonable amount of fruit.
It is without meaning to compare incoherent dietary ideas like 100% veggies or 100% fruits.
Let me put it this way: I don't think it is an uncommon belief that "adding fruit" to an existing diet will have benefits. But, in fact, if you are meeting your caloric and nutrient needs already, it is unlikely it adds anything (except fiber), and it is plausible it is causing problems (increasing possibility of diabetes, adding extra calories). Veggies are a safer add.
In both cases, you probably need to be rebalancing and not adding things, but, for the same reason, it is sensible to err on the side of much more veggies than fruits. However, because fruit tastes like candy (and perhaps because you don't have to cook them, generally), people reach for adding more fruit to their diets, and this is likely sub-optimal. You should almost certainly be eating much more vegetables than you should be eating fruit. I.e. I'd say healthy is more like 80% veggie, 20% fruit, if you are putting them in the same category.
Maybe 50/50 is perfectly good too, but it seems pretty clear 100% fruit and 0% veggie is the worst possible choice, but 100% veggie and 0% fruit is perfectly fine. This should bring into question the appropriateness of the label "healthy" for fruit.
It discusses clearly, and concludes with, lamenting the loss of complex flavour in favour of sweetness. Also mentioned is people's assumption that fruit's inherently healthy, but the sugar increase is changing that. The link between excess sugar and poorer health is assumed knowledge by now. Type II diabetes is on the rise for a reason.
Pink Lady, Snapdragon, Sweetango are all probably closer to alanced compared to Cosmic Crisp. Cosmic Crisp being more tart than Sugarbee, but still definitely more sweet than tart in flavor profile IMO.
Sweetango and Pink Lady are probably what I would consider balanced sweet and tart.
Interesting. Pink Lady is a favorite for me, and Sweetango is great too, but I'd consider Cosmic Crisp very, very close to Pink Lady in overall balance (I do agree Pink Lady is better though). I'm in Canada and Cosmic Crisp is special / protected and seems to always have to come from the States, whereas I can get the others fresher and grown locally, so perhaps that is a factor.
I'm a honeycrisp fanatic (and it's a good balance of sweet/tart for me). This is the first I've heard of Sweetango, I don't think I've seen them in the grocery stores. Will be keeping my eyes peeled.
Unlike many other apple varieties these days, SweeTango are only available in traditional "apple season" (Autumn months through November in the USA). I've long been a fan of HoneyCrisp, so I tried SweeTango, and while it was quite good, I still prefer HoneyCrisp. I had a similar experience with Cosmic Crisp--not as good as HoneyCrisp, but nice for some variety.
I personally agree, but I wish the article would lay out some kind of problem.
Is the sweetness causing health issues? Do sweet varieties have less other nutrition?
Much has been written on dietary simple sugar. It's controversial, so I can understand why the author may have skirted the topic. I thought the bit about tooth decay in chimps was a good hint that there are probably _some_ health effects.
I think what's interesting about this article is that one common bit of advice about limiting dietary sugar is that there's a big difference in the rate of absorption of simple sugar between fruit juice and raw fruit because the fiber content of raw fruit offers a natural means of limiting the rate of simple sugar absorption. But, if we are breeding extremely sweet fruit, it's a reasonable hypothesis that if such a "natural balance" of fiber and fructose exists, perhaps it has been undermined.
It is reasonable to presume that balance has been undermined. In general "eat your fruit and veggies" should probably be modified to "eat your veggies", which generally have fiber and better nutrient density, without the unnecessary sugar. Modern fruit really is basically plant candy. And sure, that's better than actual candy or junk food, but I no longer think it is really scientifically tenable to call most fruit "healthy".
by 'most', do you mean by those grown/consumed or by variety? because there's a vast array of fruits incl. savory (cucumber, tomatoes, avocado) as well as less common - soursop, cherimoya, mulberry, jackfruit, durian, so much more beyond the fructose bombs.
" but I no longer think it is really scientifically tenable to call most fruit "healthy"."
This doesn't appear to be even slightly tenable. The amount of sugar one consumes in a normal serving of fruit if not added to the massive amount we actually consume wouldn't be even slightly unhealthy.
Saying fruit isn't "healthy" doesn't mean it is unhealthy, there are plenty of neutral things here. But if you are treating fruits and veggies as the same (e.g. X servings of fruits and veggies), generally, anyone making X be 100% fruit is likely going to be less healthy than anyone making X be 100% veggies. And since all fruits do contain a lot of sugar (EDIT: and thus calories, which generally we already get too much of today), you should indeed moderate your consumption of fruits.
It is very hard, by contrast, to say a person can eat "too much veggies", unless they are doing something crazy like eating extreme amounts of the same greens high in oxalates or something.
Basically, enjoy a fruit or two a day, if you like them. Or don't. But you aren't "eating healthy" just because you eat a lot of fruit, nor are you eating unhealthily if you eat zero fruit.
There's truth in this but leaves out anti-inflammatory polyphenols key for brain health like those in blueberries for instance.
A healthy diet has always had a range of components. Insofar as you are eating a normal healthy amount fruit is healthy not neutral even with a higher sugar content you won't get an overdose of sugar just from any reasonable amount of fruit.
It is without meaning to compare incoherent dietary ideas like 100% veggies or 100% fruits.
Let me put it this way: I don't think it is an uncommon belief that "adding fruit" to an existing diet will have benefits. But, in fact, if you are meeting your caloric and nutrient needs already, it is unlikely it adds anything (except fiber), and it is plausible it is causing problems (increasing possibility of diabetes, adding extra calories). Veggies are a safer add.
In both cases, you probably need to be rebalancing and not adding things, but, for the same reason, it is sensible to err on the side of much more veggies than fruits. However, because fruit tastes like candy (and perhaps because you don't have to cook them, generally), people reach for adding more fruit to their diets, and this is likely sub-optimal. You should almost certainly be eating much more vegetables than you should be eating fruit. I.e. I'd say healthy is more like 80% veggie, 20% fruit, if you are putting them in the same category.
Maybe 50/50 is perfectly good too, but it seems pretty clear 100% fruit and 0% veggie is the worst possible choice, but 100% veggie and 0% fruit is perfectly fine. This should bring into question the appropriateness of the label "healthy" for fruit.
It discusses clearly, and concludes with, lamenting the loss of complex flavour in favour of sweetness. Also mentioned is people's assumption that fruit's inherently healthy, but the sugar increase is changing that. The link between excess sugar and poorer health is assumed knowledge by now. Type II diabetes is on the rise for a reason.
https://archive.is/NDsER
People rave about Cosmic Crisp apples, but to me they are bland. I prefer a balance between sweet and tart.
I just want tart. Give me a Granny Smith any day. They also make the best pies.
Wait what? Cosmic Crisp is like the clearest example of a balance between sweet and tart. What would you consider a balanced variety?
Pink Lady, Snapdragon, Sweetango are all probably closer to alanced compared to Cosmic Crisp. Cosmic Crisp being more tart than Sugarbee, but still definitely more sweet than tart in flavor profile IMO.
Sweetango and Pink Lady are probably what I would consider balanced sweet and tart.
Interesting. Pink Lady is a favorite for me, and Sweetango is great too, but I'd consider Cosmic Crisp very, very close to Pink Lady in overall balance (I do agree Pink Lady is better though). I'm in Canada and Cosmic Crisp is special / protected and seems to always have to come from the States, whereas I can get the others fresher and grown locally, so perhaps that is a factor.
I'm a honeycrisp fanatic (and it's a good balance of sweet/tart for me). This is the first I've heard of Sweetango, I don't think I've seen them in the grocery stores. Will be keeping my eyes peeled.
Unlike many other apple varieties these days, SweeTango are only available in traditional "apple season" (Autumn months through November in the USA). I've long been a fan of HoneyCrisp, so I tried SweeTango, and while it was quite good, I still prefer HoneyCrisp. I had a similar experience with Cosmic Crisp--not as good as HoneyCrisp, but nice for some variety.
Cox's Orange Pippin cannot be beat. Goldrush, best apple I've had in the USA.
[dead]