Which is true for most statements in this thread. But for no good reason. These are all verifiable/falsifiable statements. There is an obvious objective truth but everyone is just cargo culting.
Question: which vitamins are in your juices? Are these vitamins you dont get enough in your normal diet or from the sun? How much of those do you actually need and does that mean you need 1 or 2 glasses a year?
Actual plant food or fruit is loaded with phytochemicals like polyphenols, carotenoids, flavonoids, etc. most of which we seem to be able to survive without, but at the same time exert real testable effects on our metabolism and immune systems.
But we don't know in detail what those effects are yet since there are literally tens of thousands of these compounds, and we've only just started to scratch the surface.
Well, my questions were open ended in nature. "We don't know" would be a perfectly objective thing to say about a lot of stuff.
But even if there are very few 'confirmed' food facts (i.e. we dont know anything), that does not exclude the possibility that there are many 'rejected' food beliefs, since those statements are not open questions.
For example: many people belief that the more vitamins they eat the healthier they get. Every scientific experiment falsified this statement! That doesn't mean we know what makes people healthy, but we can still know that 'health is a proportional relationship to vitamin intake' is a bullshit belief not backed up by any experiment.
Science can and has rejected hypotheses, without the requirement that they replace it with anything. "We don't know" is perfectly acceptable. "Drink this high vitamin juice, it will make your life last longer" means the person uttering those words is either a fraud or an idiot.
There are plenty of things that are true that haven't been subject to rigorous, peer-reviewed scrutiny, because of the lack of practicality or the cost associated with it.
I feel the same way about veggies. Raw veggies are awesome.
I've tried to eat the same quantity of raw veggies as what I would juice; LOTS OF WORK.
Did I need that much juice? Was I getting the equiv or better of benefit from drinking juice as I would have eating entirely raw? IDK.
Oranges contain glucose, fructose and sucrose.
The ratios of fructose and glucose are pretty much the same in both fruit and table sugar. Most fruits are 40 to 55 percent fructose (there’s some variation: 65 percent in apples and pears; 20 percent in cranberries), and table sugar (aka sucrose) is 50/50. [1] Your Coke is 42-55% fructose. [2]
Are there differences in vitamins and minerals? Yep. Fiber? Nope. Sugar? Nope. And the latter two are the biggest deal IMO.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/fruit-sugar-versus-...
[2] https://examine.com/nutrition/is-hfcs-high-fructose-corn-syr...
No, that's not part of the definition of juicing, and juicing oranges, especially, without straining out all the pulp is common.
Edit: I agree that the waste is ridiculous
Also interesting is a banana (52) should be eaten in moderation by anyone with diabetes, moderate index but less fiber? I have relatives with diabetes but needed to eat a banana for the potassium but all they were allowed was half a banana.
My skinny vegetable eating family on my mom's side have type 2 diabetes mainly the women of the family. My overweight, ex-smoking, little to no exercise family on my dad's side don't have type 2 diabetes except one.
And sugar doesn't cause diabetes like so many people seem to say on the Internet. You certainly crave sweets but sugar isn't the cause of type 2 diabetes.
Eating lots fiber for slowing sugar absorption and for feeding your good gut flora in your microbiome seems to be the key to many things in life and health.
She lived on a farm, ate only vegetables except the occasional roast on Sunday, walked everywhere, very little sugar, ate locally grown food, no McDonalds or fast food at all in this isolated rural area in the 1940s even 1950s and 1960s, a healthy lifestyle didn't help.
One of my aunts (mother's side) died of pancreatic cancer. So it seems there is some genetic problem for pancreases (sp?) and women on my mom's side.
Sugar beets account for a significant chunk of sugar production but not a majority.
Also, I screwed up when I said table sugar. I meant commercial sugar used in things. Table sugar still comes from sugar plants.
When people talk about trying to lose weight by eating more fruit, you can guess the outcome of how well they do.
On the other extreme I think something like Soylent is downright terrible.
However, fruits contain acids that can be helpful in moderation for fighting free radicals etc.
Also, these days sugar is added to everything, including genetically modified plants, which is pretty much every plant you buy in the supermarket.
Fuji and Gala are quite sweet, but they also stay quite crisp a long time compared to older varieties, so it isn't just sugar content. Same with Granny Smith, which are popular because they are relatively tart (while still being fairly sweet for apples).
In fact it is exactly this sense that is used when people say "nearly everything is GMO these days".
https://www.cagw.org/media/wastewatcher/almost-everything-ge...
GMO are a modern, accelerated way to achieve similar goals (or ones that were previously unattainable, such as pesticide resistance). The criticism is that adding genes from other plants may have unforeseeable, potentially undesirable side effects.
Citation needed
Corn is in many things: http://fooderyboston.com/corn-is-everywhere/
Corn has tons of added sugar through genetic tinkering, as well as many other plants: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/opinion/sunday/breedin...
Within one generation, the new extra sugary varieties eclipsed old-fashioned sweet corn in the marketplace. Build a sweeter fruit or vegetable — by any means — and we will come. Today, most of the fresh corn in our supermarkets is extra-sweet. The kernels are either white, pale yellow, or a combination of the two. The sweetest varieties approach 40 percent sugar, bringing new meaning to the words “candy corn.” Only a handful of farmers in the United States specialize in multicolored Indian corn, and it is generally sold for seasonal decorations, not food.
We’ve reduced the nutrients and increased the sugar and starch content of hundreds of other fruits and vegetables. How can we begin to recoup the losses?
Yeah, i'm actually surprised about this. Im not in the US, so i don't know how well it all compares with the supermarket here.
As for rethinking my downvote. It seems i can't un-downvote you. Maybe there is a time-limit?