Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Health => Topic started by: miles on July 29, 2011, 02:06:43 am
-
I used to have problems eating fruit - all the problems other people mention such as that it would cause digestive discomfort, acne, poor energy, dehydration, 'candida symptoms' etc...
Now though, I generally only eat fruit that has more than or approximately equal glucose relative to fructose, and no more problems!
If you haven't tried it already, maybe you should...
Fruits with more glucose than fructose include: Apricots, peaches, nectarines, plums, dates, figs, bananas and green grapes...
...and many other fruits have only slightly more fructose than glucose.
Pears, apples and watermelon on the other hand are examples of fruits with a low glucose:fructose ratio - pears having a ratio of ~4:9 glucose:fructose.
-
This is very useful to know. I googled "glucose fructose in fruit" and found a few articles that explained this further and gave some examples of fruits to eat and fruits to avoid. Not surprisingly, most berries were on the "good" list.
-
never had problems with fruits but potatoes used to give me bad bloating and gas. not anymore. every now and them i enjoy potatoes fried in lard or butter.
-
Fruits without toxins/natural defenses and ones that you aren't allergic to that are Tree Ripened prob wont give ya problems. Esp wild edible fruit.
-
This seems to click in with what Lyle McDonald is saying about ratios of fructose and glucose. I'll give it a try.
I just had a look at the wikipedia entries on fructose and glucose. It looks like fructose is harder for the liver to handle in general and disrupts it's process. What do you think about using glucose powder for carbs, with maybe some salad in the diet?
-
The fructose/glucose thing is all pseudoscience, shown only in a test tube.
Eat whatever fruit you want, as our ancestors did and evolved for.
-
Well it's not pseudoscience, it's science. There are sometimes not enough studies on people to back things up true.
Our ancestors wouldn't have had farmed fruit from all over the world or been able to eat as much as they want whenever, so that approach doesn't work for me.
-
Maybe no one here has read this yet:
Wild and Ancient Fruit: Is it Really Small, Bitter, and Low in Sugar? @
http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/
-
Philippines had tons and tons and tons of WILD fruit when the Spaniards first arrived and started recorded history in 1521+
Every month there is a fruit in season to look forward to.
The wise healers in our country say you must follow the seasons. Eat the fruits in season.
Part of the joy of road trips is the abundant variety of fruits you get that are local to that area you are traveling on.
-
Maybe no one here has read this yet:
Wild and Ancient Fruit: Is it Really Small, Bitter, and Low in Sugar? @
http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/
It's an interesting article and well argued. I still tend to think that fruit would be limited by season and availability to some extent. It's also possible that people simply wouldn't want it as much if they have other food readily available. We don't know.
I do this for health, and think that while raw paleo is great it is worth questioning if something else is better. This might not be it, but eventually there will be something that contradicts raw paleo but is better for health, it would be strange if not.
So I will keep open minded about if fructose is bad and glucose better. Glucose might also be able to balance up the levels if the right kind of fruit is not available.
-
Maybe no one here has read this yet:
Wild and Ancient Fruit: Is it Really Small, Bitter, and Low in Sugar? @
http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/
Although most cultivated fruit is pretty safe from a toxicity perspective, wild fruits—especially under-ripe ones—can contain an array of natural toxins causing everything from an upset stomach to death.
These substances can also make some types of wild fruit difficult to eat in large quantities without feeling queasy.
has anyone not experienced this with trying to get significant calories even from our (non-ancient) wild berries, grapes, apples, stone fruits etc...leaving only to believe this nonsense that durian and bananas being of the tropics are then similar?? to their ancient ancestors?
She always gives a helpful comprehensive take yet
somehow this isn't super significant? that many of the natural toxins have been bread out of a food? to then suggest what people ate in the past? Masterjohn's perspective below in the comments on potatos being now far more healthful than their previous wild versions is one legitimate perspective I suppose, however when added to this gem..
"The Kitavans eat 10% of their energy intake as fruit, coming to 400 grams by weight or 220 calories per day. If you ate this as modern strawberries, you could eat 55 medium ones and get 391 mg of vitamin C. Regardless of the pitfalls of modern commercial fruit, that’s a heck of a lot of vitamin C and most people don’t get anywhere near it, probably to the detriment of their health. " Chris Masterjohn (04:56:42) :
at a certain point one has to stop mixing theory and suspicion (while criticizing other theory and suspicion) and realize that even people as touted as eating these 'paleo' high carb diets eat a very select of it from fruit...even when its wildly (literally and figuratively) available year round.
http://www.icuc-iwmi.org/files/Publications/Bourke%20-%20Production%20pattern%20for%20fruits%20&%20Nuts.pdf
cape gooseberry, elder (Sambucus nigra), naranjilla (Solanum quitoense), highland yellow passionfruit (suga prut) (Passiflora ligularis) and black raspberry, guava (Psidium guajava), and carambola (Averrhoa carambola) are some of the common fruits eaten in tropical Papua New Guinea. Is anyone eating these foods or in this way? if not they are just shooting shit about how to rationalize a diet that no one eats in nature like all bananas and salad and some nuts and 2 oz of beef because it has a corresponding macro-nutrient ratio. which is exactly the kind of bad science people are supposedly combating.
When examining the perplexity of all the most naturally lived peoples we have on record Its no surprise that even in the really 'pure' human and high carb intake that without control over the food supply it is unwise or impossible from many directions to make a diet composed heavily of raw fruit. This is where one can discuss glucose, fructose etc... because this is the 'science' of the human body..which unfortunately is too abstract to resolve why modern people can have problems with fruits..no matter the quality or wild..just possibly less so due to these various factors.
Without getting into too many topics like glucose etc..I can say based on experience of eating almost 100% fruits for years..living in a semi-wild space it was difficult to eat even the modern and less toxic varieties fruits like carambola or guava in any serious quantity...nevermind berries or fruits my particular ancestors would have had access to in the past 200,000 years as 70-90% of a diet. Often times there are lags in fruits in season or even with hundreds of trees like papaya often bearing few ripe fruits - that are also tasteiest when ripened intelligently by a person and not rotten and fermented on the ground.
Essentially the fructose and other arguments - while flawed - correspond with many of the actual results, with eating 'low sugar' or 'low fructose' fruits being one possible tool people can use regardless of the near 50% fructose or 90% carb content claims by Denise and others. AFAIC celery is oft considered a low carb food I guess because it has less percentage of carbs per calorie than durian..its also hardly sweeter and even though a durian has less sugar by this same analysis than a berry - through experience one can certainly label it as 'more sugary'. Also people have been breeding fruit for as long as we have been slightly civil, a fruit that grows on its own in the woods or jungle is not by any degree a fruit of our ancestors.
---
basically as RVAF eaters...people should already be aware of the different internal bacterias, fungus, molds and gasses on health
the main issue that people rarely have a grasp of has to to with gases that are produced as a by-product when certain food materials are digested by naturally occurring bacteria in the large intestine, or colon. These bacteria are responsible for digesting both sugar and cellulose and other fibrous material which are not normally digested in the upper gastrointestinal tract.
The sugars that cause gasses are raffinose, lactose, fructose, and sorbitol. fats and proteins rarely cause gasses or feed fungus.
With the latter two being common in fruits. The unfortunate reality the fresh raw and fiber rich sugars can often be more problematic then refined carbs, and certainly a greater possibility in people with disrupted terrains. The goal is to have a positive terrain of bacteria. Even in the normal natural reaction this gas is created and loose fermented sugars will be attacked by friendly bacteria which can lead to less of such and overgrowth of unfriendly or "pathogenic" bacteria and fungus.
so virtually all carbs cause breakdown to gasses naturally and one can weigh the consequences or not for the truly healthy ancestor but this often has a much more disturbing breakdown and consequence for peoples at wide varieties of internal terrain and from experience the fructose or 'wild' thing plays at least a minor part in that when viewed from this perspective.
-
I personally have NEVER had any problems with eating fruit, I have with all other foods but never fruit.
Only people with insulin resistance and other severe health problems sometimes have difficulty eating 100% fruit. 95%+ fruit is natural after all and what all the other great apes try to eat. 8)
There was a time not long ago when I didn't believe that it was possible to have problems with eating fruit, but over the months/years I've come to accept that at least for diabetics, it's perhaps possible to have some sort of problems eating a lot of fruit that you wouldn't get with RAF. However for a healthy individual, these problems don't exist.
-
I personally have NEVER had any problems with eating fruit, I have with all other foods but never fruit.
Only people with insulin resistance and other severe health problems sometimes have difficulty eating 100% fruit. 95%+ fruit is natural after all and what all the other great apes try to eat. 8)
There was a time not long ago when I didn't believe that it was possible to have problems with eating fruit, but over the months/years I've come to accept that at least for diabetics, it's perhaps possible to have some sort of problems eating a lot of fruit that you wouldn't get with RAF. However for a healthy individual, these problems don't exist.
do you have any documentation (photos and blood work) of these healthy human beings? never seen or read about one myself in 6 years that qualifies as healthy. are you personally able to eat both a high animal fat and high fruit based diet or is this experience of no overt symptoms self-assessed while eating mostly fruits which are often masking of serious problems? In other words, what standards are these assessments based on that go against actual science and evidence of what happens internally in even perfectly healthy people?
-
do you have any documentation (photos and blood work) of these healthy human beings? never seen or read about one myself in 6 years. are you personally able to eat both a high animal fat and high fruit based diet or is this experience of no over symptoms while eating mostly fruits? what standards are these assessments based on?
I've never really tried a high animal fat diet. Things like cod liver oil give me digestion problems sometimes if I take too much of it, though I know cod liver oil isn't completely natural. However I have never experienced any problems with for example raw organic eggs which I really like.
I also have gotten into incredibly low and depressive moods when I didn't have any fruit... I know that you can get used to this after a while but I would rather never experience that state. I used to eat 100% fruit but gave it up due to how incredibly expensive it is and how time-consuming and boring it is to buy fresh fruit every two days or at most three.
Here is a website with a guy and with interviews from people who have been 100% fruitarian for years: http://mangodurian.blogspot.com/ (http://mangodurian.blogspot.com/) Blood tests can be interpreted in many different ways, the indicators available in blood tests (such as triglycerides being suggestive of heart disease) are for people who are on SAD diets. On a fruitarian diet you don't need to get these blood tests, having said that I'm sure the blood profiles of people with diets very high in fruit are exceptionally good.
-
I've never really tried a high animal fat diet. Things like cod liver oil give me digestion problems sometimes if I take too much of it, though I know cod liver oil isn't completely natural. However I have never experienced any problems with for example raw organic eggs which I really like.
I also have gotten into incredibly low and depressive moods when I didn't have any sugar... I know that you can get used to this after a while but I would rather never experience that state. I used to eat 100% fruit but gave it up due to how incredibly expensive it is and how time-consuming and boring it is to buy fresh fruit every two days or at most three.
Here is a website with a guy and with interviews from people who have been 100% fruitarian for years: http://mangodurian.blogspot.com/ (http://mangodurian.blogspot.com/)
ok, so it would be fair to say you have a strong suspicion back upped by a concept that some modern humans can exist at least one step removed from death on fruit and that apes that we have dubious ties to ate alot of fruit coupled with some symptoms when not eating fruit
so that despite any other arguments or experience of RAF or RVAF diet or even the necessity of understanding the typical discussions in the paleo and low-carb community are all bogus (except for some possible relevance for very sick people) and that eating 95-100% fruit should be fine for people that are healthy (despite the few on the planet that might fit those typical raw definitions), making people that don't eat this way somewhere in the spectrum of 'unhealthy' categorically?
and then you say most of these decisions are out of lazyness/desire and not actual analysis of what works or doesn't , what is truly natural or what is one's fantasy of natural?
why would it then be that a large portion of people on this site come from background of largely raw fruits..and virtually none of the people eating high fruit diets (vegan or otherwise) come from LC->ZC RAF. In most cases citing better health on RAF even that includes no fruit - which couldn't really be possible if we arn't truly meant to eat 95%-100% fruit to be healthy. If people need to become closer to a certain type of diet because they are unwell..odds are its closer to our natural diet and that the 'healthy' people just have more liberties like people with cokes and candybars.
-
ok, so it would be fair to say you have a strong suspicion back upped by a concept that some modern humans can exist at least one step removed from death on fruit and that apes that we have dubious ties to
I'm sorry, my BS-o-meter has just exploded. "dubious ties"? ;D Our intestines and teeth are practically the exact same. "dubious ties". After that I think I'm going to take a break from the computer for a while, I'll read the rest of your post when I return but you should not expect a reply.
-
I'm sorry, my BS-o-meter has just exploded. "dubious ties"? ;D Our intestines and teeth are practically the exact same. "dubious ties". After that I think I'm going to take a break from the computer for a while, I'll read the rest of your post when I return but you should not expect a reply.
yes because I'm one of many people with a scientific background that questions certain evolutionary paradigms..or aware that many scientific and raw food researchers that have plenty more evidence in questioning these rote and false anatomical comparisons of vegan non-specialists. If you are citing this guys website and even the idea that diet of our supposed distant ancestors is automatically transcendent and healthy..you have a simplistic mind and likely don't have much experience ( particularly in comparison to others that have perhaps more wisdom from such) with the very diet you are promoting as ideal for humanity.
Vegan concepts are officially not allowed in the 'health' sections of this site because people get tired of responding to such ignorance. Even the idea that monkeys are healthy..with their erratic behavior is something to be questioned as an aspiration for a far better functioning human. If humans ideal diet was 95% fruit there would be no such thing as a 0 fruit healing approach..its counter the whole idea of natural hygiene which is that eating the most natural diet results in health...which is also some crap concept...but contradictory none the same.
anyway your friend has lovely chompers himself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK848_oQ_AE
high fruit diets seem to always carry with it a lack of clarity, self perception, and true criticality to various concepts.
-
KD, I find your existence and the beliefs you hold to be a remarkable curiosity.
If you really didn't read about any fruitarian for the past six years, then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and how you could come along then in your next post and act like you're some kind of expert on the subject is just beyond comprehension.
You claim to have "a background in science", and yet you don't know the first thing about how science works, or about evolution, or about what natural means. If you think the people here are going to agree with you that eating naturally is a "crap concept", then you are mistaken. That is what even the most low-carb people on this board say is the best for your health. You're a joke. You are like one of the narrow-minded people in Darwin's time who refused to accept humans were intimately connected with other animals, and you call it "dubious ties". Really, you don't know anything about science. Even mainstream medicine has (generally) agreed for decades that natural environments and food are best if they can be obtained.
-
Post a pic of a well muscled, healthy looking fruitarian and i will eat my hat, you troll.
haha, and i just watched that movie of that fruitarian KD posted. LOL at him scratching his belly and neck during that video. I find i do that too when i eat a lot of sugar(or something bullshit)
-
A lot of muscles =/= healthy. Lots of muscles are a strain on the body to maintain, they come at a cost of longevity. A little muscle is probably good.
http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com/TheFruitarian/ (http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com/TheFruitarian/)
I'm waiting to see a video of you eating your hat.
If you do not eat your hat then you are a liar, plain and simple. I am totally serious about this, you should not have made such a stupid conditional if you don't intend to carry it out.
-
KD, I find your existence and the beliefs you hold to be a remarkable curiosity.
well I can't comment to my existence but as for credibility on at least the theory and practice of fruitarianism I can say that I was on the vegsource board before the most recent fruitarian bible even came out and was practicing long before many of these neo gurus started.
I've met 5..possibly more people in the flesh that were listed as testimonials or otherwise proponents of the lifestyle in that book.
I was seen by many people as quite a success of such a diet actually..at least for a short time.
I've also read all of Arnold Eherets books and studied personally with many long term vegan rawfoodists..a few of which are quite off the map and some have a variety of 'seeing one part of the elephant' type knowledge which I have found to be somewhat useful.
I also continued to eat a fair amount of fruit while eating raw animal foods and found that my experience lined up with the theories that both the LC and fruitarian folks were saying, that I could not eat a sufficient amount of animal fat per my healing progress that allowed me also to eat a large amount of carbohydrate from fruit. I also had most of the symptoms of vegan high fruit diets in terms of disposition, physique etc...despite 'feeling good' which is incredibly unreliable when it comes to simple sugars. Days of 0 fruit often remove those clouds.
Despite the claims of yourself and others on the diet about such meeting requirements or not causing other issues with blood and tissue, I had medical issues coming out of the diet that were not there coming in particularly in terms of the very issues of carb sensitivity/fungal stuff which are seen as non issues when doing the diet 'right' or without fats etc...these themselves have taken years to resolve and i'm not alone on this board that has the same experiences.
but not to digress on that
Much of the research and communication with individuals I've done makes it quite clear that even when cooked foodists (zero carb) or even raw vegans adopt a low sugar diet (including 0 fruit) that their health oft benefits. Now one can argue to some degree against the pitfalls and shortcommings there. It does not say that in the case of zero carb or low sugar vegans that the diet that they choose or works for them to restore health is in fact our natural diet..but I do think it conclusively shows that our natural diet cannot possibly be so highly composed of fruits. People would simply not do well on such approaches (even in periods of months nevermind years or decades) completely lacking something that is so much a part of what we need to thrive and if the requirements for fruit and carbohydrate were as high as some people would believe.
Yet while it is surprising to some that people can survive on all or mostly fruit in a sense this is not all that different than a Pritkin or MacDougal low fat diet but made up of simple instead of complex carbs. I personally would add there is so many obvious other detriments and pluses that factor in here. but suffice to say I think that even for a healthy person Its extremely unlike that are main staple is fruit and certainly that fruit is far less essential in health than other foods..and in particular raw animal based foods. I also think other foods that are somewhat crappy/less natural are also more conducive to health...and the examples for this are all around us...but thats another argument.
The crucial distinction with hygiene as opposed to 'natural eating' is that I do not believe that following such a thing (if it exists) necessarily creates health. sometimes it is not enough and it does not..and more often it likely is a great assumption on how natural the approach is to begin with. Also often enough people neglect various tools which might not be the seemingly more natural options...which on serious investigation really have an assumed presence and no real precedent in real humans.
-
http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com/TheFruitarian/ (http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com/TheFruitarian/)
Maybe I'm not following this thread correctly, but all I could find on this Richard Blackman fruitarian/body-builder is the 2007 link you provided, which contains a BROKEN link to Blackman's website. Google turned up a "Where is Richard Blackman" post. I'm not convinced that he is a good example of fruitarianism, since he is an undocumented single web-page kinda guy.
-
Maybe I'm not following this thread correctly, but all I could find on this Richard Blackman fruitarian/body-builder is the 2007 link you provided, which contains a BROKEN link to Blackman's website. Google turned up a "Where is Richard Blackman" post. I'm not convinced that he is a good example of fruitarianism, since he is an undocumented single web-page kinda guy.
I used to correspond with Richard..and I was one of the last holdouts after he started his breatharian practice that still believed he had been telling the truth about what he had been doing. Not quite sure now.
He was really into salt water flushes and all kind ofs Indian cleansing and always butted heads with the hygine folks. he also claimed to just eat a little citrus juice and never ate fiber for years, So people can make their own judgments I guess. Whether he's just on BIGU(breath) or burgers now he's not on the scene to my knowledge. Super fit an inspiring guy in other ways.
Ironically the soft/undermuscled thing usually isn't an issue of animal protein...but the destructive qualities of fruit. people on low fat cooked vegan diets can put on muscle...they just suffer other problems. Many raw vegans and high fruit dieters are simply not well enough to build new tissue and can't put on healthy muscle or fat..nevermind shift bone structure and heal organs and such that people on RAF have achieved. In other words they arn't actually removing toxins from their body but causing more problems.
-
why would it then be that a large portion of people on this site come from background of largely raw fruits..and virtually none of the people eating high fruit diets (vegan or otherwise) come from LC->ZC RAF.
I don't know if he was raw, but 'Castle Grok' was a paleo LC/ZCer who went fruitarian as an experiment and decided he liked it better. http://castlegrok.com/
-
Maybe I'm not following this thread correctly, but all I could find on this Richard Blackman fruitarian/body-builder is the 2007 link you provided, which contains a BROKEN link to Blackman's website. Google turned up a "Where is Richard Blackman" post. I'm not convinced that he is a good example of fruitarianism, since he is an undocumented single web-page kinda guy.
He goes by the name Jericho Sunfire now, if you Google that you'll find his recent stuff. He's still around and gives workshops sometimes. Not off the grid.
-
Aren't we digressing over to the pro-fruitarian / anti-fruitarian argument?
The original poster merely said that he/she didn't have problems eating fruit anymore.
I don't think the intent was to go overboard with tons of fruit or fruitarianism.
We're all here because fruitarianism didn't work for us.
Many of us here can't do animal food only / zero carb.
-
well I can't comment to my existence but as for credibility on at least the theory and practice of fruitarianism I can say that I was on the vegsource board before the most recent fruitarian bible even came out and was practicing long before many of these neo gurus started.
I've met 5..possibly more people in the flesh that were listed as testimonials or otherwise proponents of the lifestyle in that book.
I was seen by many people as quite a success of such a diet actually..at least for a short time.
I've also read all of Arnold Eherets books and studied personally with many long term vegan rawfoodists..a few of which are quite off the map and some have a variety of 'seeing one part of the elephant' type knowledge which I have found to be somewhat useful.
Sounds good. I am reading a book about DNA by James Watson, who holds extremely contrairian views to mine (and probably the vast majority of people here). It makes me cringe inside, it upsets me. In fact I find Watson to be quite inaccurate at times so it is not very useful for learning new things about it. But I want to understand the enemy. For me Watson and his pro-GM stance is like Hitler. Actually you seem quite reasonable here, but I find your to my mind completely irrational suggestions about fruit, ie. such as the suggestions from your statements that you probably won't die from it, to be what I would call crazy if I believed in using that word.
I also continued to eat a fair amount of fruit while eating raw animal foods and found that my experience lined up with the theories that both the LC and fruitarian folks were saying, that I could not eat a sufficient amount of animal fat per my healing progress that allowed me also to eat a large amount of carbohydrate from fruit. I also had most of the symptoms of vegan high fruit diets in terms of disposition, physique etc...despite 'feeling good' which is incredibly unreliable when it comes to simple sugars. Days of 0 fruit often remove those clouds.
Uhh.. I have to disagree hugely here. We don't like to eat stones or mud, no, we are attracted to fruit above all. It is NOT unreliable when it comes to natural foods, it is ONLY unreliable when it comes to artificial/processed foods. It is basically 100% reliable otherwise.
At this stage we are at a time that I would call: pre-GM Holocaust. Post GM holocaust hell, we won't be able to trust our instincts on even natural foods. This is what I am trying to mitigate or inhibit the damage of GM as much as possible.
Despite the claims of yourself and others on the diet about such meeting requirements or not causing other issues with blood and tissue, I had medical issues coming out of the diet that were not there coming in particularly in terms of the very issues of carb sensitivity/fungal stuff which are seen as non issues when doing the diet 'right' or without fats etc...these themselves have taken years to resolve and i'm not alone on this board that has the same experiences.
I have never experienced anything like any of this ever. In fact, part of my motivation for eating as much fruit as possible is not to get into such a horrible state as others are in with these kinds of problems. I have been this way for ~ 4 years or so. I mean, I knew raw was best since before then and had periods of high or almost raw food but they were a bit fleeting and I might even have eaten things like bars again after that.
Much of the research and communication with individuals I've done makes it quite clear that even when cooked foodists (zero carb) or even raw vegans adopt a low sugar diet (including 0 fruit) that their health oft benefits. Now one can argue to some degree against the pitfalls and shortcommings there. It does not say that in the case of zero carb or low sugar vegans that the diet that they choose or works for them to restore health is in fact our natural diet..but I do think it conclusively shows that our natural diet cannot possibly be so highly composed of fruits. People would simply not do well on such approaches (even in periods of months nevermind years or decades) completely lacking something that is so much a part of what we need to thrive and if the requirements for fruit and carbohydrate were as high as some people would believe.
Yet while it is surprising to some that people can survive on all or mostly fruit in a sense this is not all that different than a Pritkin or MacDougal low fat diet but made up of simple instead of complex carbs. I personally would add there is so many obvious other detriments and pluses that factor in here. but suffice to say I think that even for a healthy person Its extremely unlike that are main staple is fruit and certainly that fruit is far less essential in health than other foods..and in particular raw animal based foods. I also think other foods that are somewhat crappy/less natural are also more conducive to health...and the examples for this are all around us...but thats another argument.
The crucial distinction with hygiene as opposed to 'natural eating' is that I do not believe that following such a thing (if it exists) necessarily creates health. sometimes it is not enough and it does not..and more often it likely is a great assumption on how natural the approach is to begin with. Also often enough people neglect various tools which might not be the seemingly more natural options...which on serious investigation really have an assumed presence and no real precedent in real humans.
I agree with you completely here, for example some idiots claim that "herp derp, you're using the internet, that isn't natural lololol"... but communication between animals and even tiny cells is natural.
But just because people make assumptions etc. about how natural something is does not make it a "crap concept" or make it not a useful word/concept. I think it's just about the most useful concept we have!!!
For example, I try and sit with my legs up high as much as I can, because this is the natural way of sitting. This is how indigenous populations, and un-Westernized countries such as in the middle-east/india sit, the way all primates and indeed all mammals that do sit sit. Your feet are on the same level with your ass. This almost completely prevents circulation problems, deep vein thrombosis, and in fact many people with these type of problems are medically advised to put their feet up at a higher level.
Okay, I did not realize that was Jericho Sunfire. Breathanarianism is obvious nonsense that has nothing to do with fruitarianism and he is clearly a liar.
For a reliable and good example, look at this guy: 72 years old bodybuilder and look at what he eats:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO0iKeQJpxQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO0iKeQJpxQ)
Note also that the life expectency for black people is significantly less than for white people, making his age all the more impressive.
I sincerely hope that the people here aren't foolish enough to consider the pictures and videos of very low carb RAFers constitute any actual evidence, they are openly 100% selective evidence. The only thing they are strong evidence for is that it's possible for a person to get like that on them, thinking they mean anything else would be crazy beyond belief.
-
The man said so himself, he was naturally gifted with a good looking muscular physique.
If this black guy ate MEAT maybe he'd go STRAIGHT and be attracted to WOMEN.
It's just a hypothesis. Doubt he will test it.
-
To Modern Primate--
You're about to get banned. It has nothing to do with your posting style, you really seem like a nice person. However, you either
1. really don't know enough about raw food diets to be preaching like you have been (versus me, Tyler Durden, Good Samaritan, and several others)
2. are a troll
and, since this site is about promoting, learning, and teaching unbiased dietary fact...you are going to either need to stop promoting fruitarianism, or get banned. I'd love to be more tolerant, generally speaking, but...you're nice without being particularly interesting and useful and informative, and we've had a lot of people promoting veganism here, and, like you, they weren't interesting. You, at least, have been polite, but that's not enough. I'm sorry.
We're not here for you to practice on, whether you are practicing trolling, or practicing teaching about nutrition. The first is unacceptable, and the second you don't have enough knowledge for yet.
-
I don't know if he was raw, but 'Castle Grok' was a paleo LC/ZCer who went fruitarian as an experiment and decided he liked it better. http://castlegrok.com/
He wasn't raw, and in fact writes off raw as being dangerous and conferring no additional dietary benefits:
http://castlegrok.com/reader-questions-meat-exercise/
-
Much of the research and communication with individuals I've done makes it quite clear that even when cooked foodists (zero carb) or even raw vegans adopt a low sugar diet (including 0 fruit) that their health oft benefits. Now one can argue to some degree against the pitfalls and shortcommings there. It does not say that in the case of zero carb or low sugar vegans that the diet that they choose or works for them to restore health is in fact our natural diet..
I didn't know there was such a thing as a low sugar vegan diet. It would have to be either calorie restricted or use tons of unnatural oils, like coconut oil or olive oil. Those are second-rate fats (even if they are better than corn and soybean oil). How is that at all comparable to a zero carb or low carb diet, raw or cooked?
-
I don't know if he was raw, but 'Castle Grok' was a paleo LC/ZCer who went fruitarian as an experiment and decided he liked it better. http://castlegrok.com/
Well I did give 'virtually' as a caveat O0. I would say that on top of already mentioned that merely going to a raw fruit diet and seeing how one feels is not an acceptable yardstick for assessment - particularly coming from a cooked diet. In theory I do believe a cooked paleo/primal diet is superior, but there are many people on this site that would disagree based on their experience, particularly if they include some raw animal foods. In the high carb-paleo world, I tend to also give more creedence to people actually researching what and how individuals actually ate..rather than makes huge leaps and assumptions. Some are more satisfied with combining logic like that no animal cooks food so that anything that is suitable to be eaten can be done so without any problems despite how people actually were able to eat or thrived in eating. To me it just seems to rub obviously against what is actually working or not when looking at all kinds of dietary trends...that to me are often useful 'controls' like i mentioned.
In case you are interested, this guy actually was a heavy raw meat eater that now only eats raw meat occasionally and is geared more towards raw vegetarianism.
http://www.paullundkvist.com/36101.html
Not to be super critical..but I followed it a few years back and If one was to read the whole thing...it seems to stop making as much sense..be mired in personal dramas and then ends. I don't believe there really is any holy grail type solution in health that will apply to everyone, so while I think experimentation and not following any specific raw or LC or other dogma is good....I can only point to which things people with experience on both sides of things have found to actually have importance and which things are prone to more problems. Its by no means universal or can be seen clearly always.
Let me say then that I believe in the very high percentages (99%+) if you find someone on such a diet that one might assess as healthy..odds are they were already very athletic with athletic builds and really had minor problems coming into such a diet and certainly were not in their developing stages as humans when they started - which in addition to true healing and measurable physical changes - is really where one sees that gaps in terms of what is a natural diet....or which foods that are perhaps natural are working or not for modern people to regain health.
If we take someone that has managed to heal their body through various diets and methods...I do not believe a diet high in fruits is always going to be detrimental and I do believe people in nature at some point could very well have eaten what I might consider to be a large amount of fruit - at least seasonally. The main point I think is my observation and others that these diets are not suitable for healing and therefore also very suggestive that our natural diet is not one that is such a high percentage of fruits which by % at the very least discludes other foods which have actually proven to be completely health sustaining. On top of this lack it is also likely filled with excesses and ones particularly problematic for modern people consuming modern versions of such foods.
-
... Here is a website with a guy and with interviews from people who have been 100% fruitarian for years: http://mangodurian.blogspot.com/ (http://mangodurian.blogspot.com/) Blood tests can be interpreted in many different ways, the indicators available in blood tests (such as triglycerides being suggestive of heart disease) are for people who are on SAD diets. On a fruitarian diet you don't need to get these blood tests, having said that I'm sure the blood profiles of people with diets very high in fruit are exceptionally good.
As usual, Padraig, you've been going on and on about the wonders of fruit, fruitarianism and the frugivorous nature of humans. The odd thing is, in the past you admitted that you're not a true fruitarian and eat foods that are generally forbidden on fruitarian and even broader vegan diets. Why do you promote a diet that you don't even follow yourself?
-
As usual, Padraig, you've been going on and on about the wonders of fruit, fruitarianism and the frugivorous nature of humans. The odd thing is, in the past you admitted that you're not a true fruitarian and eat foods that are generally forbidden on fruitarian and even broader vegan diets. Why do you promote a diet that you don't even follow yourself?
I'll tell you why. A vegan diet makes you flakey, indecisive, and fuzzy-headed, so, even if you know veganism is damaging your brain, and are trying to eat some animal products to fix that, you sometimes avoid animal products, because your brain is so messed up already. You also do things like preach veganism. Why? Because your brain is so messed up.
The sad/funny part is that it's the flakey types who are most likely to try veganism in the first place...and they're the ones who fall into the vicious cycle the easiest. The flakey types need lots of good-quality animal fats, and need to avoid simple sugars. The worst situation is when they go low-fat fruitarian. That's a really quick way to brain damage.