Dark chocolate has very little sugar. I eat it all the time. No problemo.

Fruit is nutritionally worthless (other than vitamin c). I don't know what "off the top of your head" is supposed to mean as a quantifiable statement. If you think we can live on fruit, or are even designed to consume it in large quantities, I've got oceanfront property in Phoenix I'd love to sell you for cheap. Fruit was designed to be eaten FOR THE PLANT's benefit so we later lay the plant's seed somewhere in a perfect pile of fertilizer. It's a form of seduction to get us to do the plant's bidding. It doesn't mean it's good for us. And in any case, fruit is only available for a short window of time each year, and its main purpose in mammals is to trigger FAT STORAGE for hibernation or surviving the lean winter months.

I highly recommend you read Paul Saladino's book, The Carnivore Code. You will learn much about the parasitic and often pernicious role plants play versus human beings. Also, Saladino will address the amylase issue you brought up.

The form of sugar in fruit - fructose - as I explain in one of my supplemental comments in this thread, does not cause blood sugar or insulin spikes because it gets sent directly to the liver which only releases it gradually into the bloodstream as it turns it into glucose. That's the reason diabetics are advised to use fructose as their form of sugar. But it's a false bargain, because too much fructose will lead to fatty liver because fructose is processed by the liver nearly identically to how the liver processes alcohol.

We have a taste for sweetness and an ability to turn sugar into energy just like EVERY SINGLE ORGANISM on planet earth. There's absolutely nothing novel about it. Sugar was probably the very first source of energy for life on earth. We have inherited and retained the ability to use sugar for energy throughout our ancestral chain, like every other organism. But long ago sugar became only a survival backup for large classes of animals. Mammals developed into primary fat burners, and humans are no different in this sense than all other mammals. Leaf-eating monkeys are fat burners. EVERY mammal runs primarily on fat.

Dark chocolate has very little sugar. I eat it all the time. No problemo.

Fruit is nutritionally worthless (other than vitamin c). I don't know what "off the top of your head" is supposed to mean as a quantifiable statement. If you think we can live on fruit, or are even designed to consume it in large quantities, I've got oceanfront property in Phoenix I'd love to sell you for cheap. Fruit was designed to be eaten FOR THE PLANT's benefit so we later lay the plant's seed somewhere in a perfect pile of fertilizer. It's a form of seduction to get us to do the plant's bidding. It doesn't mean it's good for us. And in any case, fruit is only available for a short window of time each year, and its main purpose in mammals is to trigger FAT STORAGE for hibernation or surviving the lean winter months.

I highly recommend you read Paul Saladino's book, The Carnivore Code. You will learn much about the parasitic and often pernicious role plants play versus human beings.

The form of sugar in fruit - fructose - as I explain in one of my supplemental comments in this thread, does not cause blood sugar or insulin spikes because it gets sent directly to the liver which only releases it gradually into the bloodstream as it turns it into glucose. That's the reason diabetics are advised to use fructose as their form of sugar. But it's a false bargain, because too much fructose will lead to fatty liver because fructose is processed by the liver nearly identically to how the liver processes alcohol.

We have a taste for sweetness and an ability to turn sugar into energy just like EVERY SINGLE ORGANISM on planet earth. There's absolutely nothing novel about it. Sugar was probably the very first source of energy for life on earth. We have inherited and retained the ability to use sugar for energy throughout our ancestral chain, like every other organism. But long ago sugar became only a survival backup for large classes of animals. Mammals developed into primary fat burners, and humans are no different in this sense than all other mammals. Leaf-eating monkeys are fat burners. EVERY mammal runs primarily on fat.

Dark chocolate has very little sugar. I eat it all the time. No problemo.

Fruit is nutritionally worthless (other than vitamin c). I don't know what "off the top of your head" is supposed to mean as a quantifiable statement. If you think we can live on fruit, or are even designed to consume it in large quantities, I've got oceanfront property in Phoenix I'd love to sell you for cheap. Fruit was designed to be eaten FOR THE PLANT's benefit. It's a form of seduction to get us to do the plant's bidding. It doesn't mean it's good for us. Fruit is only available for a short window of time each year, and its main purpose in mammals is to trigger FAT STORAGE for hibernation or surviving the lean winter months.

I highly recommend you read Paul Saladino's book The Carnivore Code. You will learn much about the parasitic and often pernicious role plants play versus human beings.

The form of sugar in fruit - fructose - as I explain in one of my supplemental comments in this thread, does not cause blood sugar or insulin spikes because it gets sent directly to the liver which only releases it gradually into the bloodstream as it turns it into glucose. That's the reason diabetics are advised to use fructose as their form of sugar. But it's a false bargain, because too much fructose will lead to fatty liver because fructose is processed by the liver nearly identically to how the liver processes alcohol.

We have a taste for sweetness and an ability to turn sugar into energy just like EVERY SINGLE ORGANISM on planet earth. There's absolutely nothing novel about it. Sugar was probably the very first source of energy for life on earth. We have inherited and retained the ability to use sugar for energy throughout our ancestral chain, like every other organism. But long ago sugar became only a survival backup for large classes of animals. Mammals developed into primary fat burners, and humans are no different in this sense than all other mammals. Leaf-eating monkeys are fat burners. EVERY mammal runs primarily on fat.

Dark chocolate has very little sugar. I eat it all the time.

Fruit is nutritionally worthless (other than vitamin c). I don't know what "off the top of your head" is supposed to mean as a quantifiable statement. If you think we can live on fruit, or are even designed to consume it in large quantities, I've got oceanfront property in Phoenix I'd love to sell you for cheap. Fruit was designed to be eaten FOR THE PLANT's benefit. It's a form of seduction to get us to do the plant's bidding. It doesn't mean it's good for us. Fruit is only available for a short window of time each year, and its main purpose in mammals is to trigger FAT STORAGE for hibernation or surviving the lean winter months.

I highly recommend you read Paul Saladino's book The Carnivore Code. You will learn much about the parasitic and often pernicious role plants play versus human beings.

The form of sugar in fruit - fructose - as I explain in one of my supplemental comments in this thread, does not cause blood sugar or insulin spikes because it gets sent directly to the liver which only releases it gradually into the bloodstream as it turns it into glucose. That's the reason diabetics are advised to use fructose as their form of sugar. But it's a false bargain, because too much fructose will lead to fatty liver because fructose is processed by the liver nearly identically to how the liver processes alcohol.

We have a taste for sweetness and an ability to turn sugar into energy just like EVERY SINGLE ORGANISM on planet earth. There's absolutely nothing novel about it. Sugar was probably the very first source of energy for life on earth. We have inherited and retained the ability to use sugar for energy throughout our ancestral chain, like every other organism. But long ago sugar became only a survival backup for large classes of animals. Mammals developed into primary fat burners, and humans are no different in this sense than all other mammals. Leaf-eating monkeys are fat burners. EVERY mammal runs primarily on fat.

Dark chocolate has very little sugar. I eat it all the time.

Fruit is nutritionally worthless (other than vitamin c). I don't know what "off the top of your head" is supposed to mean as a factual statement. If you think we can live on fruit, or are even designed to consume it in large quantities, I've got oceanfront property in Phoenix I'd love to sell you for cheap. Fruit was designed to be eaten FOR THE PLANT's benefit. It's a form of seduction to get us to do the plant's bidding. It doesn't mean it's good for us. Fruit is only available for a short window of time each year, and its main purpose in mammals is to trigger FAT STORAGE for hibernation or surviving the lean winter months.

I highly recommend you read Paul Saladino's book The Carnivore Code. You will learn much about the parasitic and often pernicious role plants play versus human beings.

The form of sugar in fruit - fructose - as I explain in one of my supplemental comments in this thread, does not cause blood sugar or insulin spikes because it gets sent directly to the liver which only releases it gradually into the bloodstream as it turns it into glucose. That's the reason diabetics are advised to use fructose as their form of sugar. But it's a false bargain, because too much fructose will lead to fatty liver because fructose is processed by the liver nearly identically to how the liver processes alcohol.

We have a taste for sweetness and an ability to turn sugar into energy just like EVERY SINGLE ORGANISM on planet earth. There's absolutely nothing novel about it. Sugar was probably the very first source of energy for life on earth. We have inherited and retained the ability to use sugar for energy throughout our ancestral chain, like every other organism. But long ago sugar became only a survival backup for large classes of animals. Mammals developed into primary fat burners, and humans are no different in this sense than all other mammals. Leaf-eating monkeys are fat burners. EVERY mammal runs primarily on fat.

Dark chocolate has very little sugar. I eat it all the time.

Fruit is nutritionally worthless (other than vitamin c). I don't know what "off the top of your head" is supposed to mean as a factual statement. If you think we can live on fruit, or are even designed to consume it in large quantities, I've got oceanfront property in Phoenix I'd love to sell you for cheap. The form of sugar in fruit, fructose, as I explain in one of my supplemental comments here, does not cause blood sugar or insulin spikes because it gets sent directly to the liver which only releases it gradually into the bloodstream as it turns it into glucose. That's the reason diabetics are advised to use fructose as their form of sugar. But it's a false bargain, because too much fructose will lead to fatty liver because fructose is processed by the liver nearly identically to how the liver processes alcohol.

We have a taste for sweetness and an ability to turn sugar into energy just like EVERY SINGLE ORGANISM on planet earth. Sugar was probably the very first source of energy for life on earth. We have inherited and retained the ability to use sugar for energy throughout our ancestral chain, like every other organism. But long ago sugar became only a survival backup for large classes of animals. Mammals developed into primary fat burners, and humans are no different in this sense than all other mammals. Leaf-eating monkeys are fat burners. EVERY mammal runs primarily on fat.