Re: Sugar and fruit loops.

  I wasn't trying to make it into a black and white issue, I was actually trying to dispel the myth that oversimplified concepts such as 'sugar is bad' are ridiculous.

When you bash ALL studies in one swoop that is making things in to a black and white situation.

We're simply misunderstanding each other now, my entire point and direction of my post was to outline how the 'sugar is bad' concept is not always true (as in the case of fruit for majority of people), not that fruit is a safe haven, as yes anything is potentially dangerous when you factor in allergies , contamination, etc.

No, sugar is not always bad.  That is why our bodies also produce sugars.  But the opposite view of that, which is also true is that sugars are not always good.  And that includes sugars from fruits or other sources containing other nutrients.

I don't know why you're picking at my posts saying 'well this isn't always the case..

Because it is not always the case.

' when I say in the paragraph above it things like 'almost always' which doesn't mean 'always'. Obviously you put more weight into nutrition related studies as a whole than I do, but this is just a grey area between us.

There is a good reason for that.  Unless a substances effect is based on isolation tests then there is no way to tell what is actually having the effect.  Let's say that we claim that soy has anticancer effects.   So what about soy has anti-cancer effects?  If we cannot answer that then how are we supposed to be considered credible?  And if we do not break down the chemistry then how are we supposed to know what those active components are?  But those studies were done and we do know such as the anti-cancer properties of the phytoestrogens and phytic acid.

Since you claim that the nutrients in fruits are healthy how do you know that for that matter?  Are you guessing?  Or are you basing this on the fact that the individual nutrients were isolated and shown to have healthy benefits in those same studies you are blanketly slamming?

I simply didn't have time to write the narrative essay to cover every tangent related to which foods I think are best (big mac vs kiwi), the extremely rare cases that a diabetic would be stupid enough to believe that fruit would be awesome for them, etc.

It is not a matter of what you think, it is what you can prove or at least provide evidence to.  There are people who think "liver flushes" actually cleanse the liver and they will swear up and down this is true.  This despite the fact that the "liver flushes" have been proven bogus over and over.  

The point that I keep making though is that not everything is that black and white.  Is a kiwi really safer than a big mac if it has been grown on toxic soils or has been sprayed with herbicides and pesticides?  

Just like how anyone can find studies to back up what they want to prove anyone can also come up with arguments to back their views.  Thus we need some form of evidence, which is usually in the form of studies again.