Sugar detox? Cutting carbs? Why you should keep fruit on the menu

 I do not believe in evolution, but if you understand it properly....

Which you obviously do not....

It's all totally random and depends on which mutations are more statistically possible/common than others.

The mutations may be totally random, but it is not a question of which mutations are 'statistically possible/common'.

It's a question of which mutations lead to an organism being better fitted for survival.

To really be trustworthy, scientists would need to be able to test their hypothesis 

Oh my goodness, you mean as in testing the hypothesis of 'the Creator must have done it'? How do you do that, then? Pray?

Read this description of how the peppered moth literally changed its spots in Industrial Revolution Northern England, to see evolution in action before our very eyes.

https://butterfly-conservation.org/moths/why-moths-matter/amazing-moths/peppered-moth-and-natural-selection

A similar thing happened with our sweet tooth. Those ancient humans who got lots of valuable nutrition from sweet, ripe fruit grew healthy and produced lots of babies that inherited a sweet tooth; they had what it took to survive in their environment. Those ancient humans who did not have a sweet tooth and chose instead sour, unripe fruit got less nutrition, were less healthy and produced fewer babies, probably because they didn't have the energy to run away from predators, lacked the necessary sex drive and their stunted, pasty bodies were not appealing to members of the opposite sex who were looking for healthy mates.

Try reading Darwin before you embarrass yourself again.

@ tjguy No, humans did not evolve TO DO ANYTHING. I do not believe in evolution, but if you understand it properly, nothing evolves "to do" anything - even though this phrasing is often used.

Evolution of the human primate along with all other species is a FACT, not a theory or speculation. Wether you choose to believe in or not is irrelevant. Evolution facts are facts (backed with years of research, evidence and applying the scientific method to continually amend and update our knowledge and awareness) and personal beliefs are simply just beliefs.

Never in the history of fat people has anyone ever get fat by eating apples, bananas or strawberries.

Try cutting out the doughnuts, cakes, cookies and chocolate. And maybe try getting off the sofa once in a while.

Sugar-free candy, cakes, cookies and artificial sweeteners were encouraged.

I do not even know what that is supposed to mean. What "sugar-free candy, cakes, cookie"? If those are not sweet, no one would eat them. And if the sugar is replaced with chemicals that play tricks on your brain, that would be even worse than sugar.

Eat food, not too much, mostly plants. Not rocket science.

No, humans did not evolve TO DO ANYTHING. I

Sorry but the text do not imply intention, it is just how things are expressed for simplicity. The same way that pathogens do not "enter the host to produce descendants" nor "cancer cells hijack cellular processes to escape immunity". Assuming intention is only one of the senses the phrases have, the other is that in order to one result to be observed something else have to have happened first.

Your corrections apply only for people that are unable to understand these two perfectly valid meanings. This is in no way "crediting" evolution but offer it as an explanation that fits with the evidence available and it is not contradicted so it can be assumed as correct until information that indicates other explanation fits better.

And no, you can't say the same thing without using evolution as an explanation.

Millions of people (myself included) follow a zero sugar / very low carb keto lifestyle.

I have been doing the same for some years, though recently less strictly.

I think occasional fruits are fine, but as explained in your video, today's fruits are much sweeter than those our ancestors had access to, and most of them did not have access year round.

There is nothing natural about eating today's fruits all year.

And fruits, if eaten, should be eaten whole, fruit juices are almost as bad as sodas.

Low-carb diets may lead to weight loss, but at the expense of health. Diets that significantly reduce carbohydrates are associated with nutrient deficiencies and higher risk of death from any cause. On low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets the body will break down muscles and turn their protein into glucose. The lack of fiber causes constipation.

That was perhaps true regarding the early ketogenic diet that had extremely high fat (90% of calories?). But few, if any, people follow that diet today. The standard keto diet is more around 70% fat and maybe 20 to 25% protein, which should prevent muscle breakdown.

People can also get plenty of fiber on a ketogenic diet (e.g. with leafy greens, mushrooms).

Evolution of the human primate along with all other species is a FACT, not a theory or speculation. 

A semantic point perhaps, but I think evolution is very much a scientific theory. It is, of course, strongly supported by factual observation. I guess we could call the existence of gods a theory, but lacking almost any supporting observations, not a very sound one.

In science, a fact would be something like observing a ball fall to the ground when you let it go. We probably all believe gravity is the reason for it falling, but scientists would still describe gravity as a theory.

Millions of people (myself included) follow a zero sugar / very low carb keto lifestyle. Occasionally I might have a few blueberries or raspberry's but that's it. No other fruit is necessary, especially modern GMO Frankenstain fruit.

Our bodies have become fat adapted (converting fat into energy). Our diet consists of: Healthy Fat, vegetables and protein. No carbs, no sugar and no toxic seed oils (aka vegetable oils).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTO1LH3dPGg

Thank you for this article. I appreciate the clarification of refined sugars and natural sugars. I do have one complaint though about the explanation for why we need sugar. It is totally based on a just so evolutionary story that is nothing more than a hypothesis or guess. Here is what is written:

"Humans evolved to crave sweet tastes to get the nutrients needed to survive."

No, humans did not evolve TO DO ANYTHING. I do not believe in evolution, but if you understand it properly, nothing evolves "to do" anything - even though this phrasing is often used. It is used because it sounds like it makes sense, but evolution has no direction, no purpose and no goal. IF humans came to crave sugar for the reasons they give in the article, you still cannot say they evolved to do this. You could say that as a result of evolution, humans have come to crave sugar - but that was NOT the goal of any evolutionary changes that might have taken place. It's all totally random and depends on which mutations are more statistically possible/common than others.

"A daily supply of vitamins, minerals and fiber is needed because our bodies cannot make them. The best source of these substances for our ancient ancestors was sweet, ripe, delicious fruit. In addition, fruits contain phytonutrients and antioxidants, chemicals produced only by plants. Phytonutrients such ellagic acid in strawberries have cancer-fighting properties and promote heart health."

OK, but what does evolution have to do with this? This would be true whether or not humans are the result of millions of years of evolution.

"If you continually satisfy your taste for sweet with foods that contain refined sugar – rather than the nutrient-rich fruits at the core of this craving passed on by evolution – you may not get all the nutrients you need."

Again, the addition of the word "evolution" here is meaningless. This would be true whether the craving for sugar was part of God's design for humans OR if it happened by accident through random blind purposeless mutations over millions of year.

How about this for a more accurate description:

"If you continually satisfy your taste for sweet with foods that contain refined sugar – rather than the nutrient-rich fruits at the core of our craving for sugar – you may not get all the nutrients you need."

See? It still says the same thing. It's true whether or not evolution is responsible for that craving. It's just as likely, actually much more likely, that this craving for sugar was part of the Creator's design for humans.

I guess it sounds better to everyone - more scientific or something - when you give credit to evolution. Maybe that's why evolution gets so much credit for stuff. I realize that scientists MUST credit evolution - no matter the evidence - because that is the only solution permitted in science, but still, just saying something - even if one is a scientist - doesn't make it true.

To really be trustworthy, scientists would need to be able to test their hypothesis - you know - use the good old scientific method. But when it comes to origins, this is just not possible. In fact, no one really knows whether or not evolution could through random mistakes in the genetic code, create a craving for sugar.

The inability to test sll these evolutionary hypotheses means that they get a free pass and everyone ends up thinking believing them and thinking it is more evidence for evolution - like evolution is settled science or something. It's not.

In reality, you can say the same thing just as well without inserting evolutionary speculations about the origin of things or why things are the way they are.