# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  Try the apple diet

## Agorism

> the exciting adventure of my three day diet challenge of only eating apples and drinking water.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

Goes in apples, comes out applesauce...

----------


## sratiug

A horrible diet.  The hamburger was far more nutritious.

----------


## gerryb

What a panzy.

People fast for a week or more(or master cleanse for a month or more) and don't complain as much as this guy.

----------


## Hanley

Hi Agorism,
No doubt apples are great for health and we must add apples in our daily meals but I will suggest you to take balanced meal in small quantities to get everything in small proportions.
San Antonio Weight Loss

----------


## sratiug

> Hi Agorism,
> No doubt apples are great for health and we must add apples in our daily meals but I will suggest you to take balanced meal in small quantities to get everything in small proportions.


Actually no, they are not great for your health.  They only contain sugar and fiber, both of which are toxic.  Fiber leaches minerals from your body and prevents digestion of nutrients causing osteoporosis and other problems as well as increasing the risk of colon cancer.  The textbook of medical physiology plainly states that humans cannot digest fiber and fiber is not a food for humans.  The sugar is half fructose (just as table sugar is) which destroys your liver the same as alcohol.  All carbohydrates turn to sugar and tax your pancreas to overproduce insulin.  (1% of your pancreas is designed for this purpose).  And all sugars cause fat storage.  Only people that need to add extra fat or are doing extremely intensive exercise should eat any significant amount of carbs.

----------


## ctiger2

Christian Bale went on a coffee and apples diet for his role in The Machinist

----------


## fisharmor

For a second, I thought the diet was going to be mostly advertising and hype, be incredibly difficult for professional dieters to follow, cost three times what competing diets cost, and be based largely on someone else's open-source diet.

----------


## Agorism

> Actually no, they are not great for your health. They only contain sugar and fiber, both of which are toxic. Fiber leaches minerals from your body and prevents digestion of nutrients causing osteoporosis and other problems as well as increasing the risk of colon cancer. The textbook of medical physiology plainly states that humans cannot digest fiber and fiber is not a food for humans. The sugar is half fructose (just as table sugar is) which destroys your liver the same as alcohol. All carbohydrates turn to sugar and tax your pancreas to overproduce insulin. (1% of your pancreas is designed for this purpose). And all sugars cause fat storage. Only people that need to add extra fat or are doing extremely intensive exercise should eat any significant amount of carbs.


There is controversy as to whether it prevents colon cancer, but I doubt it causes it. Here are the AGA recommendations on it.




> Currently available evidence from epidemiological, animal, and intervention studies does not unequivocally support the protective role of fiber against development of CRC. However, when the whole body of evidence from these studies is analyzed critically, the overall conclusion supports an inverse association between dietary fiber intake and CRC risk. The magnitude of CRC risk reduction and threshold level above which dietary fiber is associated with a significant degree of CRC risk reduction need to be more clearly defined. The duration of fiber supplementation, as well as which specific target groups would benefit most from fiber supplementation, are not well established.-AGA


Link to source

----------


## dannno

> Actually no, they are not great for your health.  They only contain sugar and fiber, both of which are toxic.  Fiber leaches minerals from your body and prevents digestion of nutrients causing osteoporosis and other problems as well as increasing the risk of colon cancer.  The textbook of medical physiology plainly states that humans cannot digest fiber and fiber is not a food for humans.  The sugar is half fructose (just as table sugar is) which destroys your liver the same as alcohol.  All carbohydrates turn to sugar and tax your pancreas to overproduce insulin.  (1% of your pancreas is designed for this purpose).  And all sugars cause fat storage.  Only people that need to add extra fat or are doing extremely intensive exercise should eat any significant amount of carbs.





> Christian Bale went on a coffee and apples diet for his role in The Machinist


SLam!!

I've been losing weight by eating lots of good carbs (potatoes, juices, not refined sugars) as well as fats and protein (mostly cheese/yogurt)

Of course the only reason I needed to lose weight in the first place is because I over-indulged by having two big meals of pork ribs early in the year (I rarely ever eat meat) and that added about 10 lbs over the span of a few months and it took a while before I was able to shake it off.

For those who bash the carb diets, check this out:

60 days of nothing but spuds leaves advocate 21 lbs. lighter 

http://www.20potatoesaday.com/


Now obviously, in the above photos, the first photo he looks healthier.. there is more that needs to be eaten besides apples, but the point is that it is possible to eat nothing but carbs and not GAIN weight..

----------


## Agorism

The apple diet thing was a joke btw. I think that eating an apple a day is good for you though. It's not a lot of calories, and it constitutes a serving of fruits that isn't going to flood you with sugar like most juice will. I also think fiber is generally good for you even though the studies are lacking and at a minimum it make you feel full.

And if you think you're at risk for osteoporosis, maybe you're not getting enough sun or maybe you need some vitamin D supplementation (I doubt the cause of your osteoporosis is eating too much fiber or eating too many apples.)

I think the DASH diet is the ideal diet although it's not necessarily meant for losing weight. You just adjust the portions to lose weight or add exercise along with it.

----------


## Agorism

U.S. News and Reports just has an article about the best diets that rated DASH as the #1 diet (I was already convinced that DASH was best prior to reading it, but I like when I read something that agrees with me!) The article also rated Mediterranean Diet as #2, which is what I would have guessed as well since it is very similar to DASH.

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets





> DASH was developed to fight high blood pressure—not specifically as an all-purpose diet. But it certainly looked like an all-star to our panel of experts, who gave it high marks for its nutritional completeness, safety, ability to prevent or control diabetes, and role in supporting heart health. Though obscure, it beat out a field full of better-known diets.


Even if you're lazy and don't want to actually follow it, you can pick up easy tid bits like when you buy bread only buy it if it says "100% whole grain wheat" etc. Cut down on beef\red meat and instead eat chicken\salmon. Attempt to eat an extra serving of fruits\vegetables per day if you can, etc. Kind of common sense but still better to consciously think about it.

----------


## sratiug

You cannot digest fiber.  The only thing it does for you is flush carbs through so you can't digest them either.  But it also flushes everything else.  High carb diets are suicide, plain and simple.  An all beer diet of a true alcoholic often leaves you very thin.  Sugar (all carbs turn to sugar) feeds cancer.  A cell is turned to cancer easily by restricting oxygen so that fermentation becomes prevalent.  The more fermentation, the closer you are to cancer.  Sugar (carbs) equals fermentation.

----------


## Agorism

> You cannot digest fiber. The only thing it does for you is flush carbs through so you can't digest them either. But it also flushes everything else. High carb diets are suicide, plain and simple. An all beer diet of a true alcoholic often leaves you very thin. Sugar (all carbs turn to sugar) feeds cancer. A cell is turned to cancer easily by restricting oxygen so that fermentation becomes prevalent. The more fermentation, the closer you are to cancer. Sugar (carbs) equals fermentation.


There is no disagreement on whether humans can digest it. No one was ever arguing that but you keep saying it. There is controversy as to whether it prevents colon cancer. I'll refer to the AGA's opinion on it rather than yours.

btw- fiber is also correlated with a reduction in heart disease and diabetes not just colon cancer.

----------


## Romulus

Page 2 and no mention of eating the seeds of an apple?

----------


## AFPVet

> Actually no, they are not great for your health.  They only contain sugar and fiber, both of which are toxic.  Fiber leaches minerals from your body and prevents digestion of nutrients causing osteoporosis and other problems as well as increasing the risk of colon cancer.  The textbook of medical physiology plainly states that humans cannot digest fiber and fiber is not a food for humans.  The sugar is half fructose (just as table sugar is) which destroys your liver the same as alcohol.  All carbohydrates turn to sugar and tax your pancreas to overproduce insulin.  (1% of your pancreas is designed for this purpose).  And all sugars cause fat storage.  Only people that need to add extra fat or are doing extremely intensive exercise should eat any significant amount of carbs.


Apples—along with a balanced diet—are quite good for your health! Fiber is actually necessary for good health according to WebMD, Mayoclinic and others. Regarding the sugar found in apples, the amount of fructose sugar found in apples is not damaging... not even in the same galaxy as ethyl alcohol; however, high fructose sugar (concentrated fructose with a hint of flavorful Mercury) is damaging to the body! Regarding carbs, there are healthy carbs found in fruits such as apples. Now one consideration with fruits is that they have acids which can damage teeth if you brush immediately after eating them—so wait a while before brushing or neutralize the acids.  The main thing is to stick with a balanced and moderated diet... you should not only include fruits such as apples, but vegetables, protein sources, omega 3 sources, and some grains—although you do not need as many grains as once thought! 

Sources:

http://whfoods.org/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=15
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/w...eed-more-fiber
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fiber/NU00033
http://www.healthymealplans.biz/heal...-carbohydrates

----------


## HiddenSanity

I'm making it a point to eat an apple a day, but I'm not planning on going on a diet exclusively comprised of apples. I've tried doing it and I didn't last a day. My stomach turned sour and I got hungrier, if that was possible. But apple a day is the way to go, IMHO.

----------


## sratiug

> There is no disagreement on whether humans can digest it. No one was ever arguing that but you keep saying it. There is controversy as to whether it prevents colon cancer. I'll refer to the AGA's opinion on it rather than yours.
> 
> btw- fiber is also correlated with a reduction in heart disease and diabetes not just colon cancer.


If you cannot digest it, it cannot help you.  All it does is prevent digestion of actual food and prevent absoption of minerals.

From The Lancet, October 14, 2000;356;1286-1287, 1300-1306.  --  those eating the most fiber get the most colon cancer.

New England Journal of Medicine, Jan 21, 1999, Vol. 340, No 3,  -- Fiber does nothing to improve colon efficiency.

Journal of the American Medical Association, 285;769-776, 799-801  -- Breast Cancer risk is NOT REDUCED by high intake of fruits and vegetables.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Nov 3 2004 -- 20 year study on 100,000 people from the health professions -- "We found no association between fruit and vegetable intake (either total or of any particular group) and overall cancer incidence."

----------


## gerryb

Of course organizations owned by big pharma tell you not to eat healthy  things...  that would threaten their system

----------


## donnay

> Actually no, they are not great for your health.  They only contain sugar and fiber, both of which are toxic.  Fiber leaches minerals from your body and prevents digestion of nutrients causing osteoporosis and other problems as well as increasing the risk of colon cancer.  The textbook of medical physiology plainly states that humans cannot digest fiber and fiber is not a food for humans.  The sugar is half fructose (just as table sugar is) which destroys your liver the same as alcohol.  All carbohydrates turn to sugar and tax your pancreas to overproduce insulin.  (1% of your pancreas is designed for this purpose).  And all sugars cause fat storage.  Only people that need to add extra fat or are doing extremely intensive exercise should eat any significant amount of carbs.


Also I would add; if you are not eating organic and they use pesticides on the apples, even if you wash it, apples have such thin skin the pesticides seep through the skin.

----------


## donnay

> Page 2 and no mention of eating the seeds of an apple?


Apple seeds contain a cyanide compound.

----------


## Romulus

> Apple seeds contain a cyanide compound.


Ever seen a World w/o Cancer? They talk about it there...

----------


## amonasro

Organic apple cider vinegar is the best form of apple to take. The first month I supplemented with it (4-6 tbls/day) I went down a pants size. I sleep better, don't get junk food cravings, don't crave meat as much, my allergies are better and I have not gotten sick once. Not even a sniffle in over a year, and I'm probably 20 pounds thinner. It's really great stuff!

----------


## jmdrake

> If you cannot digest it, it cannot help you.


You can't digest water either.




> All it does is prevent digestion of actual food and prevent absoption of minerals.
> 
> From The Lancet, October 14, 2000;356;1286-1287, 1300-1306.  --  those eating the most fiber get the most colon cancer.


They weren't getting fiber naturally from foods.  They were taking bulk fiber.  There's a difference between eating wheat husks and eating apples.




> New England Journal of Medicine, Jan 21, 1999, Vol. 340, No 3,  -- Fiber does nothing to improve colon efficiency.


Int J Cancer. 2011 Aug 22. doi: 10.1002/ijc.26381. [Epub ahead of print]
Intake of dietary fiber, especially from cereal foods, is associated with lower incidence of colon cancer in the HELGA cohort.




> Journal of the American Medical Association, 285;769-776, 799-801  -- Breast Cancer risk is NOT REDUCED by high intake of fruits and vegetables.
> 
> 
> 
> Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Nov 3 2004 -- 20 year study on 100,000 people from the health professions -- "We found no association between fruit and vegetable intake (either total or of any particular group) and overall cancer incidence."



Prog Food Nutr Sci. 1985;9(3-4):283-341.
Diet, nutrition, and cancer.
Palmer S.
Abstract

Evidence pertaining to the role of dietary factors in carcinogenesis comes from both epidemiological studies and laboratory experiments. In 1982, the Committee on Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer of the National Research Council conducted a comprehensive evaluation of this evidence. That assessment as well as recent epidemiological and laboratory investigations suggest that a high fat diet is associated with increased susceptibility to cancer of different sites, particularly the breast and colon, and to a lesser extent, the prostate. Current data permit no definitive conclusions about other dietary macroconstituents including cholesterol, total caloric intake, protein, carbohydrates and total dietary fiber. Specific components of fiber, however, may have a protective effect against colon cancer. In epidemiological studies, frequent consumption of certain fruits and vegetables, especially citrus fruits and carotene-rich and cruciferous vegetables, is associated with a lower incidence of cancers at various sites

You should read more than just the studies that back up your own belief system.

Go here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?t...reast%20cancer

----------


## jmdrake

> Also I would add; if you are not eating organic and they use pesticides on the apples, even if you wash it, apples have such thin skin the pesticides seep through the skin.


Yeah, pesticide is a real problem.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21397020

_Endocrine disrupting activity in fruits and vegetables evaluated with the E-screen assay in relation to pesticide residues.
Schilirò T, Gorrasi I, Longo A, Coluccia S, Gilli G.
Source

Department of Public Health and Microbiology, University of Torino, Torino, Italy. tiziana.schiliro@unito.it
Abstract

Food is likely to be one of the most important routes of human exposure to endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs). In the present study, we evaluated the total estrogenic activity of fruits and vegetables, which was calculated using the human breast cancer cell line (MCF-7 BUS) proliferation assay (E-screen), in relation to pesticide residues. We analysed 44 food samples, 30 fruits and 14 vegetables. Of these samples, 10 did not contain any pesticide residues. The other 34 samples contained from 1 to 7 pesticide residues in concentrations ranging from 0.03 to 1.91 ppm. Estrogenic activity was detected in the 59% of samples tested. The positive controls used were 17-β-estradiol (E2), the phytoestrogen genistein and the pesticide endosulfan. The average value of estradiol equivalency quantity (EEQ) for all positive samples was 0.15±0.32 μg/100g. A low correlation was found between the concentration of pesticide residues and the EEQ values (Spearman correlation r=0.376 and p=0.012). Using values obtained from the literature, we compared the estrogenic activity of food samples with the intrinsic content of phytoestrogens, but we found no correlations. Our results also suggested that the calculated intake of dietary EDCs might represent a concentration comparable to the normal endogenous estrogen concentration in human blood._

But fiber and fructose are not.

----------


## dannno

> Organic apple cider vinegar is the best form of apple to take. The first month I supplemented with it (4-6 tbls/day) I went down a pants size. I sleep better, don't get junk food cravings, don't crave meat as much, my allergies are better and I have not gotten sick once. Not even a sniffle in over a year, and I'm probably 20 pounds thinner. It's really great stuff!


I had a similar experience to an even greater degree long ago.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> SLam!!
> 
> I've been losing weight by eating lots of good carbs (potatoes, juices, not refined sugars) as well as fats and protein (mostly cheese/yogurt)
> 
> Of course the only reason I needed to lose weight in the first place is because I over-indulged by having two big meals of pork ribs early in the year (I rarely ever eat meat) and that added about 10 lbs over the span of a few months and it took a while before I was able to shake it off.
> 
> For those who bash the carb diets, check this out:
> 
> 60 days of nothing but spuds leaves advocate 21 lbs. lighter 
> ...


Potatoes are NOT good carbs.  They're very high on the glycemic index.  You might as well eat white bread or straight table sugar.  Yams, on the other hand, are a good source of carbs (as are all the other non-root vegetables and most fruits)  
*
Why do potatoes raise blood glucose more than sugar?
Question: I've been reading about the glycemic index, and trying to choose foods which will have less impact on my blood sugar. I really don't understand why a food like potatoes (glycemic index 90) would be so much higher than white sugar (glycemic index 59). If I'm understanding this right, the glycemic index is based on the same amount of carbohydrate in the different foods. Can you explain this to me?*



*Answer: The reason is not totally known, but a strong possibility is because the starch in potatoes, indeed all starch, is made up of long strings of glucose. Since the starch in potatoes is rapidly-digested, the glycemic index of potatoes is almost as high as that of the 100 points for glucose (although there is a wide variation among the various tests, from as low as 58 to as high as 111). Sucrose (table sugar), on the other hand, is a disaccharide (two-sugar) molecule made up of one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule joined together. Fructose is processed differently in our bodies than glucose, and it doesn't affect our blood sugar as much. However, fructose causes problems of its own when we eat too much of it.
*

----------


## dannno

> Potatoes are NOT good carbs.  They're very high on the glycemic index.  You might as well eat white bread or straight table sugar.  Yams, on the other hand, are a good source of carbs (as are all the other non-root vegetables and most fruits)  
> *
> Why do potatoes raise blood glucose more than sugar?
> Question: I've been reading about the glycemic index, and trying to choose foods which will have less impact on my blood sugar. I really don't understand why a food like potatoes (glycemic index 90) would be so much higher than white sugar (glycemic index 59). If I'm understanding this right, the glycemic index is based on the same amount of carbohydrate in the different foods. Can you explain this to me?*
> 
> 
> 
> *Answer: The reason is not totally known, but a strong possibility is because the starch in potatoes, indeed all starch, is made up of long strings of glucose. Since the starch in potatoes is rapidly-digested, the glycemic index of potatoes is almost as high as that of the 100 points for glucose (although there is a wide variation among the various tests, from as low as 58 to as high as 111). Sucrose (table sugar), on the other hand, is a disaccharide (two-sugar) molecule made up of one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule joined together. Fructose is processed differently in our bodies than glucose, and it doesn't affect our blood sugar as much. However, fructose causes problems of its own when we eat too much of it.
> *


Well maybe there is more to it considering the outcome of myself and the guy who did the potato diet. Humans have been eating tubers for a lot longer than grains and such. Yams are also tubers.

----------


## papitosabe

breathing air (oxygen) causes free radical formation creating oxidation within our bodies.  Thats why its good to take vitamins or eat  fruits/vegetables that have ANTI-oxidants in them.  So should we not breathe?    meh... try and eat as much organic foods, eat smaller meals, drink plenty of water, and exercise daily, and you won't have to worry about the other stuff..

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well maybe there is more to it considering the outcome of myself and the guy who did the potato diet. Humans have been eating tubers for a lot longer than grains and such. Yams are also tubers.


Yes, but yams do not have the ridiculously high simple carb content that potatoes do.  Notice the part I quoted: *the starch in potatoes, indeed all starch, is made up of long strings of glucose. Since the starch in potatoes is rapidly-digested, the glycemic index of potatoes is almost as high as that of the 100 points for glucose (although there is a wide variation among the various tests, from as low as 58 to as high as 111). Sucrose (table sugar), on the other hand, is a disaccharide (two-sugar) molecule made up of one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule joined together. Fructose is processed differently in our bodies than glucose, and it doesn't affect our blood sugar as much.

*Some people can probably handle that sort of sugar load, but it is not normal.  Our ancestors didn't eat that kind of food.

----------

