rationalskepticism.org

TMB wrote:

Apollonius wrote:

TMB wrote:Fructose is a natural sugar in that it occurs in many fruits, and is also linked with fructans, and polyols, all as being things that are difficult to absorb and can create/cause issues with irritable bowel syndrome. The reaction to fructose is suprisingly common and can have a major impact upon health. Glucose is not such an issue with absorption and when glucose occurs in equal or greater concentrations in various fruits, it allows the fructose to be better absorbed and not end up in the lower bowel where it might cause problems. These issues have nothing to do with obesity or diabetes, however regardless of whether you react to frcutose or not, consuming large amounts of sugar is not a good thing. The Paleo diet does include fruit and plenty of fruit does contain a higher proportion of fructose than glucose (apples and pears for example), so it appears advisable to watch your fruit intake and which fruits you eat.

No one owns "Paleo," so no one can claim that it has something or doesn't. The version I do has no fruit. Some people do a small amount.

Paleo is just a generic term for a way of eating that seeks to make use of what we know about how humans thrived for like 7,000 generations before agriculture, FDAs, bullshit food pyramids, and Fruit Loops.

The basis of the Paleo diet as suggested by Voegtelin in the 70's does include fruits as its thought that stone age man did eat the fruits that had evolved at that time, however they were probably not very abundant meaning even fruit sugar was in limited supply so our bodies do not find the over abundance we have in modern times easy to deal with. I am aware that the basis of the diet has been modified into different versions. Having said that I have no practical experience of the diet whatever.

Why do you have no fruit in your diet, do you have fructose malabsorption or DFI? Have you had a good experince with the diet?