I just read a book on raw food and it says the most important thing to eat is raw greens because they have a high mineral content. What nutrients are in greens that you don't get from fruits?

minerals. all of them. and a broad spectrum of amino acids which make up proteins. and chlorophyll. fruit contains sugar, some vitamins and minerals depending on the fruit. greens are a more nutritionally packed than fruits on a micronutrient basis.

peace!
m.

Yes, I agree with m.

Fruit has the calories for energy and some minerals, as the leaves have more of the minerals, with not that many calories for energy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2006 01:52AM by shep252.

Can you give me some examples of some nutrients I can't get in sufficient quantities from fruit?

Usually leaves have a higher concentration of vitamins and minerals than fruits on a calorie for calorie basis. Leaves tend to be higher in protein, also.

Fruits usually are low in some amino acids (lysine, cysteine, methionine), calcium, and zinc, to name just a few.

It is easier to satisfy your micronutrient needs when you incorporate lots of leaves in your diet. Also leaves probably have more cancer protection than fruits.

But there may be an exception if you are very athletic and burn lots of calories per day, in such a case it may be possible to eat so much fruit that you do satisfy your requirements (except for B12, you will still need to supplement for that one). The only way to know for sure is to track your intakes using one of the online calculators.

Phosphates.

Next to a sugar & an amino acid, a phosphate is an essential requirement for proper cell replication (remember DNA & RNA from biology class, and there was always that mysterious "P" hanging around? that's the phosphate, and phosphates come from green leafy things).

Without phosphates (i.e. green leafy things) you cannot have normal cell replication - in other words you hugely increase your chances of getting cancer if you don't eat leafy greens.

Now I do think that after transitioning from cooked to raw you can eventually do a high fruit diet, but you can't succeed on high fruit without putting years of green leafy things in your body first. Then you prob will have a mineral & phosphate surplus & your body will naturally crave just fruits.

That's my hypothesis anyway. But the phosphates, that's not theory - that's a fact.

I guess I am confused because many articles say eat greens for minerals, but I can't seem to find any mierals you wouldn't get from fruits.
It is not that I don't like greens. I used to put kale in my smoothies and didn't really even notice it much. I read this article which really made me think:

[www.youngerthanyourage.com]


arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Usually leaves have a higher concentration of
> vitamins and minerals than fruits on a calorie for
> calorie basis. Leaves tend to be higher in
> protein, also.
>
From what I understand there is no need to worry about not getting enough protein, from a wide selection of fruits. Do you agree?

> Fruits usually are low in some amino acids
> (lysine, cysteine, methionine), calcium, and zinc,
> to name just a few.
I can get these from in nuts and seeds


> It is easier to satisfy your micronutrient needs
> when you incorporate lots of leaves in your diet.

If I stay within my require daily calories I can't find any micronutrients that I lack with a fruit based diet.

> Also leaves probably have more cancer protection
> than fruits.

I don't think cancer is a threat if I my diet is based on raw, organic fruit.

>
> But there may be an exception if you are very
> athletic and burn lots of calories per day, in
> such a case it may be possible to eat so much
> fruit that you do satisfy your requirements
> (except for B12, you will still need to supplement
> for that one). The only way to know for sure is to
> track your intakes using one of the online
> calculators.

This is why I am asking. If I use a calculator, I seem to be able to meet my requirements with fruit and nuts.

Johndela, I would like to see your daily diet and calcs, just to double check.

It is difficult, but not impossible, to satisfy all the requirements (except for B12 and D2 which must be addressed separately) with only fruit. It is certainly less difficult when one is very heavy and active, which would imply a much greater level of consumption. 3000 kcal or more of daily fruit is much more likely to meet one's needs than 1500-2000 kcal of fruit.

But I suspect this 3000 kcal + level is not the case for most of the people who eat only (or predominantly) fruit, which is why they often have problems. They probably aren't eating enough of it or exercising enough to justify (i.e. maintain instead of unhealthy fat gain) eating as much of it as their bodies require.

Here is an example of fruit vs. greens. To be fair I should have included some non-sweet fruit. A non-sweet fruit recipe would be somewhat in between these two extremes.

leaves:
58 grams of each of
arugula, beet greens, chard, chicory greens, collards, kale,
romaine, green leaf lettuce, and red leaf lettuce

fruit:
one cup (about 240 ml) each of
apple, banana, blackberries, blueberries, cherries,
grapefruit, grapes, guava, canteloupe, orange,
peach, pear, pineapple, strawberry, and watermelon

There are about 1253 kcal in the fruit recipe and about 1259 kcal for leaves recipe, or roughly equal calories.

Here is the nutrition data for the leaves recipe:

% daily value met for greens recipe
protein: 208%
vitamin A: 7340%
vitamin C: 2900%
vitamin E: 258%
thiamin: 237%
riboflavin: 334%
niacin: 126%
b6: 314%
folate: 929%
pantothenic acid: 162%
vitamin K: 24519%
calcium: 470%
iron: 375%
magnesium: 450%
phosphorus: 197%
potassium: 526%
zinc: 109%
copper: 341%
manganese: 918%
selenium: 59%
also, contains omega3 fatty acids: 3.8 g and fiber, 121 g

fruit:
protein: 42%
vitamin A: 238%
vitamin C: 1442%
vitamin E: 36%
thiamin: 69%
riboflavin: 51%
niacin: 57%
b6: 105%
folate: 90%
pantothenic acid: 50%
vitamin k: 136%
calcium: 34%
iron: 35%
magnesium: 76%
phosphorus: 42%
potassium: 135%
zinc: 23%
copper: 97%
manganese: 253%
selenium: 12%
also contains omega3 fatty acid: 1.9 g and fiber, 56 g.

Roughly there is at least 2 and more like 5x as much of each nutrient in the greens recipe compared to the fruit recipe.

I think the lesson is that we need both. Greens for not only the minerals but also for the protein, many vitamins, and omega3 short chain fatty acid.

We need sweet fruit for calories and to reduce bulk and excessive fiber intake.

But we also do well with some nonsweet fruit (tomato, cucumber, bell pepper, zucchini, summer squash, eggplant) and nonleafy vegetables (onion, scallion, broccoli, carrot, cauliflower, etc.) which are in the middle of these extremes.

But one might also view this example as an upper bound on how many leaves we really need to eat. If we ate the entire leaves recipe, we'd get almost 4x as much iron as what we really need just from the leaves (and we'd get extra from the other foods we'd eat). So maybe 1/4 as much as what is here is the appropriate upper bound, or a little more than 300 calories from greens. I think that most people would find even that to be way too much!

I get about 150 calories from greens, and that is a lot of greens to me, my bank balance, and my enormous grocery hauls. It's about 10% of my daily calories.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2006 11:29PM by arugula.

That's a pretty interesting comparision. Although, for guys, you've gotta watch out you don't get too much iron (which is poisonous in high quantities to males).

Ian.

iron toxicity usually occurs from taking supplements (because they are readily absorbed form). iron that comes from plants (non-heme) isn't as efficiently absorbed in the body. it would be nearly impossible to "overdose" on iron by eating lots of vegetables.


peace!
m

arugula,

I should mention that I consume raw egg yolks and sashimi (raw salmon) to get my vitamin D and omega 3 oils along with many other nutrients. I strive to eat things that don't have toxins. I think foods that taste bitter to us do so for a reason. Most greens (especially the bitter ones) including kale contain toxins, for example glucosinolates. Glucosinolates act as anti-thyroid compounds. I believe this is because plants need to protect them selves and these are a natural pestacide. I don't think we need extra fiber. So being that I eat a lot of fruit (I do eat a lot of non sweet fruits such as cucumbers, tomates, avocados, etc) I don't think I need to go out of my way to eat fiber.

So it seems that you have not actually analyzed your nutrient intakes and are buying into propaganda from nonscientific sites.

I will have to remind you that this is a vegan forum.

Your diet is full of toxins: PCBs, heavy metals, dioxins, salmonella, and a variety of parasites (nematodes, worms, etc.) that are probably still alive when you eat your fish corpses because exposure to extreme temperatures for a certain period of time (i.e. cooking and/or freezing) is required to kill them. But parasites and virulent strains of bacteria are not why I object to people eating animals and their products. It is a cruelty issue, and I really wish people would stop flaunting their meanness on a forum that is supposed to be vegan. I also hope they will find reasonable alternatives that do not require such death and destruction of sentient beings with faces and personalities.

A reasonable intake of glcosinolates via regular use of cruciferous vegetables has not been shown to be a problem when iodine intake is adequate. In fact, cruciferous vegetables are among the most cancer-protective foods of all, especially when they are only lightly cooked or uncooked. They, along with other raw vegetables, have been shown to be much more protective than fruits in many studies. And they are digested as well, even when only a small raw salad is included in the diet, there are measurable increases for key nutrients in plasma levels.

Yes, eating a high fiber diet is a very protective strategy. In the colon, bacteria ferment the soluble fibers into short-chain fatty acids. These combine with sodium and potassium ions to form soapy solutions that keep the circulatory system and intestines clean.

Each 10-g/d increment of energy-adjusted total dietary fiber intake has been associated with a 14% decrease in risk of coronary events and a 27% decrease in risk of coronary death.

More equals better: as much as you can incorporate, to the limits of what you find tolerable, the better off you are.

Colon health is also be much better with a higher fiber intake.

Prior to the advent of agriculture, our ancestors took in over 100 g of dietary fiber per day. It seems that a high fiber diet would be a very relevant modern day strategy to achieving optimal health and this has been borne out in many clinical trials.

I believe you have been contaminated with partial or untruths from certain sites that promote questionable and even unhealthy dietary practices.

I will encourage you to perform more research and not to follow anyone's agenda blindly. My statements can be readily verified with cursory PubMed searches; there are a plethora of studies to confirm and expand the knowledge base.

Also I would expect from such a diet with inadequate fiber intake and a blatant disregard for vegetables that many low intakes of key nutrients may be present and that inappropriately high saturated fat and omega6 intakes might also be present.

sunshine79 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Phosphates.
>
> Next to a sugar & an amino acid, a phosphate is an
> essential requirement for proper cell replication
> (remember DNA & RNA from biology class, and there
> was always that mysterious "P" hanging around?
> that's the phosphate, and phosphates come from
> green leafy things).
>
> Without phosphates (i.e. green leafy things) you
> cannot have normal cell replication

Sunshine,


Yes, phosphates are needed.
But no, it doesnt make sense, because fruits contain all the phosphates you need.
And its far easier to consume a few kg of fruits than a few kg of leavy greens....

Phosphates are 'listed under' phosphorus (mg/per 100 g).



108 dried figs
73 dried plums
57 dried dates
38 avocado
31 kiwi
29 strawberries
28 banana
23 orange
23 peach
20 mandarins
13 mango

leavy greens:
87 kale
55 spinach
49 lamb's lettuce
46 leek
22 lettuce

Just to let you know, I am not upset, so I don't want to make you defensive or come across like I'm pissed off. I am just trying to learn. the same things you accuse me of (following bad advice) I feel you are doing. I am looking for specific examples. I just want to keep this debate or argument nice. Pleaes don't take anything I say as a personal attack.


arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So it seems that you have not actually analyzed
> your nutrient intakes and are buying into
> propaganda from nonscientific sites.

I didn't say I didn't do this, I just said I include raw egg yolks and fish. I have done this and am covered. What is nonscientific about this?
>
> I will have to remind you that this is a vegan
> forum.

I am not debating this. I am just saying I can get anything that greens have from fruits. That is my only point. Let's just stick to this one issue.

> strains of bacteria are not why I object to people
> eating animals and their products. It is a cruelty
> issue, and I really wish people would stop
> flaunting their meanness on a forum that is
> supposed to be vegan.
I;m not flaunting anything, I'm just asking why the focus on greens. Are you opposed to carnivors in general? Many animals kill their prey in violent ways. I don't think eating eggs from free range sources is cruel. Yes I do kill fish, so do many other fish.

> A reasonable intake of glcosinolates via regular
> use of cruciferous vegetables has not been shown
> to be a problem when iodine intake is adequate. In
> fact, cruciferous vegetables are among the most
> cancer-protective foods of all, especially when
> they are only lightly cooked or uncooked. They,
> along with other raw vegetables, have been shown
> to be much more protective than fruits in many
> studies.

This may be important to people who are on a SAD but with my diet of raw foods, I don't think I am at risk. Chemo therapy does this too, but I'm not in need of it.
a levels.
>
> Yes, eating a high fiber diet is a very protective
> strategy. In the colon, bacteria ferment the
> soluble fibers into short-chain fatty acids. These
> combine with sodium and potassium ions to form
> soapy solutions that keep the circulatory system
> and intestines clean.

Again, for people on a SAD this may be of value, but I think if you attack the cause not the symptom you are better off.
>
> Colon health is also be much better with a higher
> fiber intake.

I don't think I suffer from a lack of fiber.

> I believe you have been contaminated with partial
> or untruths from certain sites that promote
> questionable and even unhealthy dietary practices.
>
Can you give me some specifics? I am open to changing.
>
> I will encourage you to perform more research and
> not to follow anyone's agenda blindly. My
> statements can be readily verified with cursory
> PubMed searches; there are a plethora of studies
> to confirm and expand the knowledge base.
The same goes for everyone, not just me. I spend a huge amout of time daily doing this research. That is what I am doing right now in this debate.
>
> Also I would expect from such a diet with
> inadequate fiber intake and a blatant disregard
> for vegetables that many low intakes of key
> nutrients may be present and that inappropriately
> high saturated fat and omega6 intakes might also
> be present.

Again, can you give me a specific nutrient I can get from veg that I can't from fruit?

WOW What a wealth of info here!! Personally, I've been wondering why anyone would only eat fruits.... Thanks, Jan

cleanjan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WOW What a wealth of info here!! Personally, I've
> been wondering why anyone would only eat
> fruits.... Thanks, Jan


I like the way fruits taste better. And being that I can get all the nutrients (minus the anti-nutrients or toxins) from fruits that I can get from greens, I prefer fruits.

I have heard a lot of 'you get minerals' but I have not seen anyone tell me which ones I can't get from fruits.

I am %100 raw and believe cooking creates toxins so we agree here.

I just see a lot of people eating greens and telling others they need to in order to get minerals. I can not find any minerals in greens that I can't get from fruits. I think my question is simple.

Tell me one nutrient I can't get from fruits that I can from leafs.

If I find one I will gladly include kale in my diet.

Johndelal, How about chlorophyl for one. And how about all the sugars(although natural) you get in fruits, an how much you would have to eat to get all the vits/ minerals needed to maintain health? Jan

Chlorophyl is present in the skins of some fruits like zuccini.

I think this issue is becoming a dead horse. Arugula posted a pretty good comparison of fruits and greens, they all had the same nutrients, but greens seemed to contain more of certain nutrients than fruit (please see Arugula's post if you need reminded which ones), while fruits seemed to contain more calaries than greens (although one or two nutrients where higher in fruits than greens).

Ian.

>>Tell me one nutrient I can't get from fruits that I can from leafs.

If I find one I will gladly include kale in my diet.<<

---------

you probably cant get any sulforaphanes from fruits (atleast not in significant amounts). kale and other cruciferous vegetables have them.

you can read about the anti-cancer properties of sulforaphanes here:
[www.whfoods.com]

do you need sulforaphanes to survive? maybe not... but it doesnt mean they cant do you any good.

im so confused.. is juicing veggies better than eating raw? would a good plan be eating mostly fruit and juicing veggies sometimes? that way you get the benefits of fruits and the benefits of juicing without the bad digestion prblems from vegs

The concentration of minerals is higher in greens that in fruit per calorie. Very athletic people can thrive on an all fruit diet because of their higher physical activity levels allows them to eat higher volumes of calories, thus higher volumes of fruits, and the various nutrients are assured. For people leading a less active life, leafy greens provide a high source of minerals without needing to eat tons of food to get those minerals.

I agree that fruit tastes better. However, I find my body desiring greens regularly, and I just listen to what my body asks for. For me, I only like the non-bitter greens, ie lettuce and celery. I can eat baby bok choy or a tiny bit of kale every so often, but for the most part the dark leafy greens are too bitter for me.

confuzed,

Juicing veggies is not as good as eating whole fresh foods. The reason is because you end up throwing away a vital and essential nutrient: fiber. Without fiber, your digestive system does not get cleaned out. Juicing if fine if you like it, but not necessary nor superior to eating whole foods.

alright. because i read when you juice you make it easier for your body to digest, plus you can just mix in the pulp and you get back the fiber.

and also the inventor or juicing lived to be over 115 seriously thats amazing. of course everything in life could be a coincidence but i think it had something to do with juicing.

confuzed,

Juicing might make some foods easier to digest (perhaps). If a person has a compromised digestive system, or is just coming off of an extended water fast, I could see this. But for most foods, you will get much more pleasure and satiation out of your food if you eat it whole rather than juiced. It will also cost you less money to eat whole foods than juiced foods.

As for someone living to 115, this could be because this person took great care of himself. He may have been breastfed for several years, and had a great immune system. He was born before pesticides were used in his foods, so for the first 50 years of his life, he ate organic foods. If he was eating mostly fresh and raw fruits and vegetables during his lifetime, plus organic foods all of his life, this would add a huge level of health and vitality.

He also may have led a stress free life. This will add years. If he alway got plenty of sleep and rest, this will add years. If he got regular exercise and sunshine and fresh air, this will add years. If he was involved in loving and rewarding personal relationships, this will add years.

So its hard to say that juicing was a critical factor in his longevity, unless you know the various detail of his life.

cleanjan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johndelal, How about chlorophyl for one. And how
> about all the sugars(although natural) you get in
> fruits, an how much you would have to eat to get
> all the vits/ minerals needed to maintain health?
> Jan


Why do you think we need chlorophyl? Can you point me to any kind of peer reviewed study on this? I don't think we need chlorophyl, but if I'm wrong I'd like to know.

ha ha ha, oh, bryan, this conversation doesn't make you laugh?
dude, you have WAY more staying power than me.

i'm strong to the finnich 'cause i eats me spinach/kale/chard/*arugula*/etc.
i'm clear-eye the salad woman!

jono Wrote:

> you probably cant get any sulforaphanes from
> fruits (atleast not in significant amounts). kale
> and other cruciferous vegetables have them.
>
> you can read about the anti-cancer properties of
> sulforaphanes here:
> [www.whfoods.com]
> &dbid=38
>
> do you need sulforaphanes to survive? maybe not...
> but it doesnt mean they cant do you any good.

Jono,
Please be patient with me. I am going to argue with you, but want to do it as a way for us to test our beliefs, not as a personal attack. Maybe, we can come to a greater understanding through discussing this.


Chlorophyl is the green pigment in plants, containing magnesium and nitrogen (no chloride). It channels the energy of sunlight into chemical energy by photosynthesis.
Chlorophyl is related to vitamin B12, but unlike B12, NOT essential for us. (and thus not a vitamin) It is essential for plants though.
You don't need it.



sulforaphanes:

Its just yet another plant-chemical in the long list of so-called antioxidants in plants. The original pupose of those chemicals is to deter the animal that wants to eat the plant. Such plant chemicals in general therefore have mutagenic properties and are mildly to severly toxic.

At lower levels (when consumed by larger animals such as humans) these chemicals elicit immune responses that CAN be seen as beneficial (if a coinciding cancerous agent needs to be dis-armed), so that they are often classified as anti-oxidants.

Do you need them?
No, they are not nutrients. And no, instead of ingesting those so-called anti-oxidants, you should simply decrease the intake of toxins in food (cooked food), because these anti-oxidants are not 'smart-bombs' at all, and may damage our cells.

Here is a nice abstract.
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Hi John, here's my thoughts in no particular order...

- I don't think a nutrient needs to be "essential" to be considered a nutrient. Maybe a vitamin needs to be "essential" in order to be called a vitamin, but nutrients include anything that is natural and good for you (that's how i see it anyway).

- Fruits and vegetables often contain polyphenolic pigments that are attractants for animals. So not all of these chemicals are intended as deterants. The high prevalence of polyphenolic compounds, and all types of antioxidants, in plant foods makes me think they are a necessary part of our diet. Imagine if you stripped fruits of all their pigments and other so-called "non-essential" nutrients. I imagine the fruit would not be nearly as healthful.

>>Such plant chemicals in general therefore have mutagenic properties<<

- just because a plant chemical might act as a deterant doesn't mean its mutagenic... though many plant chemicals are mutagenic to some degree. And being mutagenic doesn't always mean its carcinogenic (in case anyone was wondering).

>>Do you need them?<<

- Regarding sulforophanes, I don't think they're essential, but I think they can help prevent cancer and benefit one's health in other ways. You have to remember we live in a polluted world. I live in San Jose, CA and I can barely see our surrounding mountains because I am living in a pool of air pollution. When I drive to school, I inhale black clouds of god-knows-what spewing out from the trucks in front of me. Therefore i think that antioxidants are necessary, and the sulfurophanes in my green smoothies are probably helping me eliminate all the toxins I receive each day (and all the toxins from when I was a druggie in highschool).

- i get what you're saying, about how some "nutrients" may be not really be good for you. the best we can do is eat foods that we think will do more good than harm. and if we're trying to meet a certain health-related goal, we can use foods as tools to help us reach that goal.

jono Wrote:


> - just because a plant chemical might act as a
> deterant doesn't mean its mutagenic... though
> many plant chemicals are mutagenic to some degree.
> And being mutagenic doesn't always mean its
> carcinogenic (in case anyone was wondering).
>
I dont' think vegetables cause cancer. I thnk they can actually cause an immune response that can deter cancer. If I don't have cancer I don't feel I need to take in things like this
> >>Do you need them?<<
>
> - Regarding sulforophanes, I don't think they're
> essential, but I think they can help prevent
> cancer and benefit one's health in other ways. You
> have to remember we live in a polluted world. I
> live in San Jose, CA and I can barely see our
> surrounding mountains because I am living in a
> pool of air pollution. When I drive to school, I
> inhale black clouds of god-knows-what spewing out
> from the trucks in front of me. Therefore i think
> that antioxidants are necessary, and the
> sulfurophanes in my green smoothies are probably
> helping me eliminate all the toxins I receive each
> day (and all the toxins from when I was a druggie
>
If you have any links to studies that show that greens can actually do this, please post them. This seems to make sense.

>>I dont' think vegetables cause cancer. I thnk they can actually cause an immune response that can deter cancer. If I don't have cancer I don't feel I need to take in things like this<<

hey john... in addition to regulating the immune response, many plant chemicals are directly cytotoxic to cancer cells (often by inducing apoptosis), while leaving healthy cells unharmed. cancer cells arise every day but our immune systems are constantly keeping them in check. i imagine cytotoxic plant chemicals are also vitally important in killing cancer cells.

>>If you have any links to studies that show that greens can actually do this, please post them. This seems to make sense.<<

i'll check later tonight... ive got class right now. but you can search pubmed for sulforaphane + aflatoxin and see some interesting papers.