No value is gained by removing the fiber from fruits or vegetables.
We fall for the same tricks, over and over again. Like the person that cannot figure out the sleight of hand performed by a talented magician, and so loses his quarter countless times, we buy in to nutritional gimmicks every time we see them.
We know that whole foods are more nutritionally sound, and more beneficial to our health than their refined counterparts.
We know that removing the fiber from whole grains is how we turn them into worthless (nay, harmful), white flour products, filled with empty calories for the production of junk foods that stimulate our taste buds while depleting our nutrient reserves.
We know that if we remove the water and the fiber from the grass known as cane, we can refine it to white cane sugar, and we know all the problems that eating cane sugar can cause.
We know if we remove the fiber, water, and sugar from fruits and vegetables, the remaining gums are used to make supplements, and still, with all we know about refined foods, somehow we convince ourselves that these refined products are nutritionally superior to the whole foods from which they came.
Following this line of thought through to its logical conclusion and we can determine that by removing everything from a food we can produce something of unlimited value, which is obviously a fallacy.
Where did our thinking go wrong?
Fractions of foods are not better for us than their whole food sources. The motivation to refine foods into component fractions is financial, not nutritional.
Only the marketing presents the results as if there were health benefits to refined foods, in stark contrast with the known fact that whole foods are nutritionally superior.
1. Juices are touted by various health enthusiasts as being “better than whole foods,” because, “juices are easier to digest than whole foods.”
2. Juice promoters also insist that because the fiber is removed, the remaining nutrients are concentrated, meaning we can get more nutrition from juices than from whole foods.
Let’s examine each of these statements.
The nutrients in juice require the same digestion as the nutrients in whole foods, and possibly more. The water, sugar, vitamins, and minerals require no digestion, as they are readily absorbed in their natural state. The protein, fat, and other nutrients must be digested whether they come from whole food or from juice.
We do not digest fiber, hence, by removing the fiber, we do not reduce the digestive effort. With fiber removed, we can admittedly drink more carrot juice than we can eat carrots. By increasing the total calorie intake through juicing, including the fat and protein, we actually increase the digestive effort at that meal.
Would higher cholesterol levels be considered better, just because you have more cholesterol?
In our calorie-conscious world, how could increasing the overall calorie intake through juicing be considered a step forward?
“More” does not equate with “better.”
And, finally, since all nutrition books list fiber as an important nutrient, how could the removal of this valuable nutrient result in your getting “more” nutrients from juice?
If you had a pocket filled with pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters, and I said that by removing the quarters you would end up having “more money” than you started with, you would know immediately that I was incorrect.
We recognize whole foods as best, and know that nothing can be better”