Bananas

[carnivore]

This is completely misleading. As has been admitted by farmers, they routinely add too much water to their plants or artificial fertiliser etc. What's more crucial is the aspect of the nature of the soil etc. And fruits may have been tweaked in minor ways, but apples are still apples etc. - and besides, the term "frankenfoods" is solely meant to be applied to genetically-modified fruits etc., not standard cultivated fruits.

I agree that the nature of the soil is crucial.
Wild apple is smaller, astringent, harsh and insipid with a thick skin. It is edible during a very limited period. No way to overeat them. Contrary to modern apple.
Look at those http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/genetically-modified-fruits-vegetables/

[PaleoPhil]

Again, this is useless information. All herbivores eat throughout much of the day, it doesn't make raw plant food less useful for them, it's just a matter of calories/nutrients. I strongly suspect that if chimpanzees suddenly turned to a diet consisting mostly of meat that they would start suffering, healthwise.

Another completely irrelevant straw man. Neither Harris, nor Lonsdorf nor Wrangham argued that plant food is not useful for chimpanzees or that they should eat a mostly meat diet.

I'm not against anyone eating any plant foods, so I'm not arguing that (nor do Harris or Lonsdorf argue this, and Wrangham argues nearly the opposite). That's one reason I often call myself a carnivore rather than a ZCer--facultative carnivores like wolves eat some carb-containing plant foods, such as berries, as you yourself have pointed out (and even liver contains some carbs)--even though I'm essentially ZC at present. It's more of a mouthful, but maybe I should use the term "facultative" more often in describing myself, to reduce confusion and straw men. To this end I added "facultative" to my profile.

Again, I'm not remotely convinced of the above argument re "frankenfoods". As cherimoya_kid pointed out, most fruits nowadays(and even meats) have actually a very low level of nutrients than found in the past, due to intensive farming methods. In other words, even the artificially-created fruits would be perfectly fine if grown in good soil etc. And those "frankenfoods" aren't really comparable to genetically-modified fruits with fish-genes in tomatoes, the latter being more correctly labelled "frankenfoods".

My understanding of Harris' use of the term "frankenfoods" was a broader one applying to any change in a food that resulted in a deleterious effect on the diet. In this case, [domesticating] bananas to make them edible, with less seeds and more fructose (and my guess would be less bitterness also). The decreasing levels of nutrients and increasing levels of sugars in plant foods because of thousands of years of hybridization and the declining quality of soils you mentioned are additional good reasons to not rely solely on commercial plant foods, which make up the bulk of the world's plant foods, for nutrition. The genetic modification you mentioned is yet another reason to limit them. Other reasons include pesticides, herbicides, chemical washing, picking too early, ripening artificially, etc. These multiple deleterious changes, including more than just poor soils, don't somehow cancel each other out. On the contrary, they reinforce and make the case even stronger for not relying too much on commercial plant foods like some raw vegans and vegetarians do.

It think we can at least agree that Cavendish bananas, which dominate commercial export markets and US supermarkets, are not recommended. The demise of the Cavendish is expected to occur "within the next 10-20 years" anyway ("Bananas Are Dying, Killed by Corporate Monoculture," Heidi Stevenson, 2 June 2008, http://www.naturalnews.com/023339_banana_bananas_disease.html), and all the other species of banana will not be able to fill the void for a long while, unless someone develops another commercial cultivar in the meantime.

[TylerDurden]

Well, Harris was certainly quite wrong in using that term  as " frankenfoods" is only ever used to describe genetically-modified foods:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenfoods/

As for me, I used not to believe in cherimoya_kid's claims re soil-content partly because the raw wild game I routinely  bought was always of exceptionally high quality and taste. However, after comparing, over the years, the taste of some raw fruits from domestic sources and raw fruits from wild sources(which aren't all that different I've found), I have noticed that the wild fruits, such as blackberries are far better tasting than even their  organic equivalents.

[PaleoPhil]

Well, Harris was certainly quite wrong in using that term  as " frankenfoods" is only ever used to describe genetically-modified foods:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenfoods/

There's nothing at that link. The way I took it was he was expanding the definition to make a point, but I don't wish to argue semantics. So if this caused confusion for others then it may not have been the best word choice.

As for me, I used not to believe in cherimoya_kid's claims re soil-content partly because the raw wild game I routinely  bought was always of exceptionally high quality and taste. However, after comparing, over the years, the taste of some raw fruits from domestic sources and raw fruits from wild sources(which aren't all that different I've found), I have noticed that the wild fruits, such as blackberries are far better tasting than even their  organic equivalents.

I didn't dispute Cherimoy_kid's claim about soil nutrient content being a factor, so I'm not sure who your comment is directed to, if anyone. Like I said, there are numerous problems with commercial bananas, of which poor soil content is one, and I'm planning on trying wild local berries from the Vermont hill country myself this summer, though they weren't all that great tasting to me last summer (rather bland, slightly bitter). But maybe that's because they were frozen. I hope I get to try some fresh ones this summer.

Last spring and summer I did enjoy grabbing a crab-apple off local trees every now and then. They were very tart, but I liked it, and they even tasted a bit sweet to me, whereas in my childhood crab-apples didn't taste sweet at all, perhaps because of the carbs I was eating at the time. They were a bit mealy though, so I usually spit out the fiber after extracting the juice.

[cherimoya_kid]

Last spring and summer I did enjoy grabbing a crab-apple off local trees every now and then. They were very tart, but I liked it, and they even tasted a bit sweet to me, whereas in my childhood crab-apples didn't taste sweet at all, perhaps because of the carbs I was eating at the time. They were a bit mealy though, so I usually spit out the fiber after extracting the juice.

Apples aren't the best example to use to bash cultivation.  They are much are larger and sweeter if you prune and reduce the number of fruit early in season.  The remaining fruit are much larger and tastier, because all the available nutrition is routed into fewer actual pieces of fruit.  At least, this is what I've been told.

[PaleoPhil]

Quote from: PaleoPhil on Today at 05:11:31 PM

Last spring and summer I did enjoy grabbing a crab-apple off local trees every now and then. They were very tart, but I liked it, and they even tasted a bit sweet to me, whereas in my childhood crab-apples didn't taste sweet at all, perhaps because of the carbs I was eating at the time. They were a bit mealy though, so I usually spit out the fiber after extracting the juice.

Apples aren't the best example to use to bash cultivation.  They are much are larger and sweeter if you prune and reduce the number of fruit early in season.  The remaining fruit are much larger and tastier, because all the available nutrition is routed into fewer actual pieces of fruit.  At least, this is what I've been told.

I don't see how my words could be interpreted as using apples to bash cultivation, and that was not my purpose. My purpose in that excerpt was to show that I enjoy some wild-like fruits and plan on trying some more this summer. I agree that apples are probably superior to bananas. The wild apples that cultivated apples descend from were edible and the main variety was reportedly even tasty.

Apparently, the main wild apples that are the ancestors of today's cultivated apples (Malus domestica) are Malus sieversii and Malus sylvestris:

Recent DNA analysis by Barrie Juniper, Emeritus Fellow in the Department of Plant Sciences at Oxford University and others, has indicated ... that a single species still growing in the Ili Valley, on the northern slopes of the Tien Shan mountains at the border of northwest China and Kazakhstan, is the progenitor of the apples we eat today. Leaves taken from trees in this area were analyzed for DNA composition, which showed them all to belong to the species M. sieversii, with some genetic sequences common to M. domestica.

However, another recent DNA analysis[2] showed that Malus sylvestris has also contributed to the genome of M. domestica. A third species that has been thought to have made contributions to the genome of the domestic apples is Malus baccata, but there is no hard evidence for this in older apple cultivars.

It is named alma in Kazakhstan; the region in Kazakhstan thought to have the oldest such plants includes the city of Alma-ata, or "Grandfather of Apples". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malus_sieversii

Malus sieversii is the supposedly tasty one:

Some of these wild species, such as M. sylvestris are astringent, intensely sour, and small. Others, such as Malus sieversii are pleasant, relatively sweet, almost like a miniature version of a modern apple.
http://www.naturalhub.com/natural_food_guide_fruit_common.htm

So there is clearly more rationale, from a Paleo perspective, for eating apples than bananas. Granted, that's still no guarantee apples are "optimally" healthy or a "miracle food," but given the history, 30 apples a day seems less bizarre than 30 or even 12 bananas a day (not that I'm recommending any of this).

[Neone]

After not a lot of fruit but apple season hitting, i figured i would gorge on apples (wild)  but i found that my mouth couldnt handle the acidity after a few and started burning and feeling pretty crappy compared to when i was ZC (mouth feels polished from the dentist every day, even if you dont brush)

[PaleoPhil]

Yes, same here. That's one reason I don't recommend lots of fruits, even apples, to people. The acids and sugars seem to affect some people, such as me, very negatively. When I was eating lots of fruits and some organic fruit juices I lost some of my enamel and developed more pitting in my teeth, and I know someone who lost all her enamel from a vegan diet high in fruit. Since going raw carnivore, much of the pitting has filled in again (I didn't know this was possible). I also get that polished feel and don't wake up with morning breath and scum in my mouth.

[TylerDurden]

Blast wikipedia, it redirected me to that temporary link but in fact the real link was this one:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies

But the above link didn't even mention frankenfoods despite it being in that temporary link. Here is the standard definition:-

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Frankenfoods

[PaleoPhil]

Blast wikipedia, it redirected me to that temporary link but in fact the real link was this one:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies

But the above link didn't even mention frankenfoods despite it being in that temporary link. Here is the standard definition:-

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Frankenfoods

Yes, that's fine, thanks. That was also my understanding of the definition before I read Harris' article, and I took his use of it to be a novel one intentionally made for emphasis, to shock people out of their misguided assumptions about bananas, often ill-informed by vegan and fruitarian propaganda. The only way to know for sure would be to ask him for clarification, but it's not important enough to me to bother with right now.

I think that frankenfood is an apt term for biologically inappropriate foods that have been significantly modified by human beings in ways other than just genetic engineering and was considering adopting this novel use myself. However, it might cause confusion for other people, as it did you, so I'll refrain from using it for now and I'm looking for better alternatives if you have any to suggest.