http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8756328208000823- "The results suggested that glucose rather than fructose exerted more deleterious effects on mineral balance and bone"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1221903- "Rats on high sucrose diet deficient in vitamin D maintain calcium homoestasis unlike rats fed glucose, they have normal uptake by bone and development but lighter bones than vitamin D fed rats"

"Fruit is protective against prostate cancer by lowering serum phosphate" -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11036473

"Fructose causes a greater oxygen consumption than glucose and increases CO2 and blood temperature higher" -http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/264/4/E504.abstract

"During exercise addition of fructose to glucose increases carbohydrate metabolism by 50%"- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15946410

"Fructose decreases capillary leakage and in one study after 4 weeks and 8 weeks a 60% fructose diet produced a 51% and a 56% decrease in capillary leakage, respectively"- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9633792

"Fructose can protect against the stress of increased hydrogen peroxide"- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008621509002456

check your sources again! Both starchy tubers and fruits can be part of your Paleo diet plan if you tolerate them well!

It would really help if you shared a link to the list you mentioned, since there are many but most that I've seen recommend portion control for both starch and fructose--control, not avoidance.

I am suspicious of any plan that doesn't offer flexible options because humans come with many "option packages" (think gut flora communitites) and life histories and therefore we don't thrive on exactly the same things.

If you follow VLC you might have to choose between fruit and starch on a given day but can include both in a weekly rotation; otherwise, why not a little of both?

If it's a whole food--or a chunk of one--I'll give it a try and that's what my ancestors would've done too.

The first link is very dated. Lean meats have been disputed for years now in the pale/primal world. So I wouldn't listen to that website in general. Sounds like the just quoted Dr. Cordain's earlier book that even be has since said is outdated.

The second is the same. "Lean hamburger" gasp NEVER! lol you also see it says diet soda. Uh... really? And frankly it says No Bacon. Silly silly site.

The third is all the same.

I think where this came from was because you wouldn't eat tubers raw thus meaning paleo men and women wouldn't have either truth thus not consuming them. The great thing is ancestral eating has come a long way from just "eat as a paleo man would". We see things like cooked meats, coconuts even though only in the tropics, even arguably some dairy is beneficial to us. This includes sweet potatoes.

*On my phone sorry for silly mistakes.

Lots of paleo folks are eating sweet potatoes and even white potatoes now. To get the glucose without the fructos...

Because there's lots of good stuff (vitanutrients) in fruit, but very little in tubers.

http://www.paleodietfoodlist.net/paleo-diet-food-list/

http://altmed.creighton.edu/paleodiet/Foodlist.html

http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/paleodietcavemandiet/a/paleoforbidden.htm

I was reading Archevore's No Macronutrient essay. He claims that fructose is toxic if the dosage is too high. He seems to favor starches.

I also saw or read somewhere that fructose is metabolized in the liver and is sort of like alchohol in its breakdown.

I'm just starting Paleo - reading Loren Cordain's book. It says no potatoes or tubers I thought - but I am reading on the net some Paleo people do eat sweet tomatoes. I'm a little confused about what a 'tuber' is in the first place. I have hypothyroidism and hypoglycemia - are potatoes of any kind recommended on paleo? Also trying to lose 10-15 lbs....