A recent claim circulating on social media suggests that eating too much fresh fruit could increase the risk of coronary heart disease. The claim stems from a video featuring cardiologist Dr Pradip Jamnadas, who warns that modern fruit, which he describes as high in fructose, available all year round and “unnaturally” consumed out of season, may contribute to heart disease, diabetes and fatty liver.
However, this assertion is misleading. Scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the opposite conclusion: regular consumption of whole fruits is associated with a lower, not higher, risk of heart disease.
According to the World Health Organization, adults should consume at least 400 grams of fruits and vegetables daily to help reduce the risk of serious health conditions, including heart disease. A large-scale study from the International Journal of Epidemiology, part of Oxford Journals found that each additional 200 grams of fruit eaten per day lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease by around 10%, with benefits seen up to about 800 grams per day — roughly the equivalent of four large apples.
The confusion likely arises from conflating the natural fructose found in whole fruit with added fructose in processed foods and sugary drinks. While excessive intake of fructose is strongly linked to obesity, diabetes, and fatty liver disease, the naturally occurring sugars in fruit come packaged with fibre, vitamins, minerals and antioxidants that help regulate how the body absorbs and uses sugar. This “whole food matrix” is crucial, slowing digestion, improving satiety, and supporting heart health.
Experts note that focusing solely on the fructose content of fruit while ignoring these beneficial nutrients paints a distorted picture. Moreover, anecdotal cases like the one described in the claim — where a patient felt better after eating less fruit — do not outweigh the broad base of population research showing that diets rich in fruits and vegetables protect against chronic disease.
The claim that eating fresh fruit increases your risk of heart disease is therefore false. On the contrary, consistent scientific evidence shows that a diet high in whole fruits helps reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. We had recently conducted a fact-check on fruit consumption being the primary driver of obesity in the United States, a claim that was similarly found to be false.
This claim is a good example of malinformation, where a statement contains a small piece of legitimate science but is framed in a way that distorts its meaning.
In this case, it’s true that diets high in added sugar are harmful to heart health. But the leap from “added fructose” to “all fructose, including that in fruit” is misleading. By removing context and presenting a narrow slice of information with scientific authority, such claims can sound convincing even when they contradict established evidence.
Another common tactic is appealing to anecdotal experience or authority — for example, featuring a medical professional sharing a personal observation rather than peer-reviewed research. These narratives can feel relatable but often overgeneralise individual cases.
