Fruit order in the 12 steps
Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 3:40PM In the forums and elsewhere, there has been some discussion of the "significance" of some re-ordering of the steps, which I tried to address as not being that meaningful in the last post.
I responded on the forums with this:
It is not that details are not important. It is that the 12 steps would be 300 pages long with all the detail in it. You are supposed to read the rest of the blog for the detail, if you want the detail.
I moved fruit down because the established focus on animal products already de-emphasizes fruit and the fact that "eliminate sugar" is already correctly interpreted by most people to mean " limit sugar as much as possible, including bags of sugar like apples and bananas".
Don't place too much significance on the absolute order - like whether something is #6 or #9 - it's the general order that matters.
The importance of each step will probably differ for each individual. I don't have a "stop smoking" step because who doesn't already know that one? That is not an endorsement for camel straights, obviously.
Likewise, if you are currently a fruitarian, The fruit step should be moved up to number one!
Again, the 12 steps is just a heuristic or teaching tool, that also has the advantage of being a one-page plan you can follow even if you have no interest in science or the details of "why". The brevity that makes it useful also means it simply can't be a universe of obsessive nutritional detail.
So use some common sense in "interpreting" the 12 steps.
Reader Comments (3)
I am reminded of that scene from the Python's "Life of Brian" where Brian is "mistaken" for the Messiah and the people following him begin to blindly emulate everything he does. (Absolutely no offence intended to anyone on the forum. I, as much as anyone, am prone to picking something interesting to pieces to see how it fits together!)
KGH:
I like the scene where Brian is at the balcony and says, imploringly, "Think for yourselves"
The crowd responds in unison with.. "THINK FOR YOURSELVES"
Also, Peoples Front of Judea vs the Judean Peoples Front reminds me of some of the "paleo" schisms sometimes.
I don't eat fruit myself. But I think that the new list is better marketing. ;) My relatives would scoff a bit less with fruits at position 10, even if this position has no real meaning. It's still easier to sell in this new format.
Patrick
KGH: If it's more marketable, so be it, but that is not why I changed it. Otherwise it would be "low fat" :)
I love fruit. But given what I now know about fructose and is toxicity, I limit myself. My current intake is 6oz of mixed berries (strawberries, blackberries, blueberries) + a plum + mandarin orange. I think this is moderate given my 3000 kcal / day intake.
I have met a person online who eats a lot of fruit each day, which supplies most of his energy needs (in his words, a few apples, a few bananas, 10-20 large dates, a couple kiwis, some cherries, raisins). He is physically active, bikes every day, and is healthy and normal weight. I have told him that this massive amount of fructose surely is slowly damaging his liver, despite the fact that he burns it via physical activity, and despite that likely he has excellent insulin sensitivity due to his physical activity. Am I right to warn him? Would a liver injury show up in a liver panel?