I've known for years they are a highly dubious food (unripe, unfresh, hard to digest, potential runaway sugars leading to increased blood sugar) so here is a simple article which talks about them.
[www.constipation-remedies-for-all.com]

Some basic science in the link below. Note, don't let bench ripening fool you into thinking it is the same as tree ripening (the article above talks about that).
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

and

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

None of these high starch foods seem good, but at least we can use food processing to eliminate many problems to ensure good digestion of starches and complex sugars, but if we buy fruit and vegetables from shops we still have the major problem of them not being fresh.

Do we really want to be eating such low quality foods? Taking four hours to go through the [partial] digestive process doesn't help. l would rather spend 4 hours of digestive time on fresh, high quality, high bioavaialable nutrient foods; not life robbing, enzyme stealing dubious foods like the common shop bought banana.

And does picking a hard avocado, transporting it thousands of miles and having it sit on your bench for weeks in order to soften make any more sense??? And people wonder why they struggle with the raw vegan diet. How can anyone be truely healthy [in the long term] eating such dubious foods like that.

Comparison Of Mineral Content Of Some Ripe And Unripe Fruits In Nigeria
[www.ajol.info]


Just saying. Something to think about.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2013 01:46AM by The Sproutarian Man.

And the solution is indoor greens, sprouts, and wheatgrass. That is why Brian Clements and the Hippocrates Health Institute have been so successfully in healing many. That is why the 30bananasaday folks are not that healthy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2013 04:43AM by madinah.

Madinah, there is a difference between a cleansing diet and a long term sustainable diet.People go to health farms and fast, or go on juices and also have really good results.Everyone who goes on restricted diets for a time improves.If you go from a bad diet to a better diet you always improve. The problem arises when the pepole think that becasue they have gotten better they have found the optimum diet and then they write the books, etc., but we never hear of their follow ups, and if they have fared badly it's all covered up.

<<<Just saying. Something to think about.>>>

Yes, it’s nice to be reminded, especially for newbies, to NOT Eat UNRIPE Fruit!

And then, for those who have not taken the time to read the links, this article made reference to studies done with UNRIPE BANANA FLOUR!!! Not only was the Fruit chosen NOT RIPE, but they also dried it into a FLOUR! Can you say deceptive? How many Raw Foodies Eat UNRIPE BANANA FLOUR!?!?!?

As far as Brian Clement, I have a few issues with a few things that he has said about fruit and I would love for anyone to chime in for clarity.

Point #1) I heard Brian Clement say on air back on 1-30-03 that “Today’s fruit has 28-32 times as much sugar as its ancestors when fruit was our original diet.”

If today’s fruit has, for example, 100 calories per 100 grams and 90% is sugar, does that mean that the fruit our ancestors ate only had ~3 calories per 100 grams using an average of 30 times as much sugar?

Point #2) In a YouTube Video [www.youtube.com] at the 5:25 MM, Brian says, “So pet scans that we use for diagnostic work for cancer. They inject sugar into the body. I have a colleague in California that took apple and took the sugar out of it – injected that into 3 of his patients – the same exact results came from the apple juice extract, the sugar fructose, as did the glucose.”

So Brian’s colleague in California used isolated fructose (apple juice extract) and not the whole fruit in this cancer experiment and there’s a big difference! For some reason, Brian claims that the body does not differentiate sugar from fruit, candy and honey and once again, there’s a big difference! We all know that Fruit has Fiber and the Sugar in Fruit is NOT the same as Processed Sugar, so why does Brian think that isolated fructose (apple juice extract) is the same thing as eating Fruit with Fiber? To even use this as a comparison makes me very suspect!

Peace and Love..........John





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2013 11:49AM by John Rose.

I think fruit is not the problem, just the mistaken belief that unlimitted and extreme amounts of fruit can be eaten just because fruit is '' natural '', easy to get and simple to prepare, to the detriment of not eating other foods.

Small, medium or even large amounts of fruit ( at the approppriate times and for a limited number of people ) seem to be ok in conjuction with a healthy balanced diet - whatever that happens to be for the individual.

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> And then, for those who have not taken the time to
> read the links, this article made reference to
> studies done with UNRIPE BANANA FLOUR!!! Not only
> was the Fruit chosen NOT RIPE, but they also dried
> it into a FLOUR! Can you say deceptive? How many
> Raw Foodies Eat UNRIPE BANANA FLOUR!?!?!?

My thoughts exactly, but the gist of the article and the science links is that bench ripe bananas are not properly ripe, and many of those starches are still not going to be converted to sugars for proper digestion. The green banana flower may lower the digestion rate in the results, but it still lets us know that many are eating unripe bananas and are likely not digesting them like we think we are. I don't think it is too far from the reality because you do hear of people getting constipated by bananas, and in my experience and other peoples...bench ripened bananas don't digest well. I am convinced, bench ripened bananas are a highly dubious food. Bananas don't energise me, they make me feel tired and it feels like l have eaten hard unripe fruit...they lower my level more than any other fruit.


>
> As far as Brian Clement, I have a few issues with
> a few things that he has said about fruit and I
> would love for anyone to chime in for clarity.
>
> Point #1) I heard Brian Clement say on air back on
> 1-30-03 that “Today’s fruit has 28-32 times as
> much sugar as its ancestors when fruit was our
> original diet.”
>
> If today’s fruit has, for example, 100 calories
> per 100 grams and 90% is sugar, does that mean
> that the fruit our ancestors ate only had ~3
> calories per 100 grams using an average of 30
> times as much sugar?
l agree. Where did Brian get this information from???


>
> Point #2) In a YouTube Video
> [www.youtube.com]
> =rec-exp_fresh+div-1r-30-HM at the 5:25 MM, Brian
> says, “So pet scans that we use for diagnostic
> work for cancer. They inject sugar into the body.
> I have a colleague in California that took apple
> and took the sugar out of it – injected that
> into 3 of his patients – the same exact results
> came from the apple juice extract, the sugar
> fructose, as did the glucose.”
>
> So Brian’s colleague in California used isolated
> fructose (apple juice extract) and not the whole
> fruit in this cancer experiment and there’s a
> big difference! For some reason, Brian claims
> that the body does not differentiate sugar from
> fruit, candy and honey and once again, there’s a
> big difference! We all know that Fruit has Fiber
> and the Sugar in Fruit is NOT the same as
> Processed Sugar, so why does Brian think that
> isolated fructose (apple juice extract) is the
> same thing as eating Fruit with Fiber? To even
> use this as a comparison makes me very suspect!

l haven't opened the links because l have heard every Brian Clement lecture on the internet (some many times), but l do fully understand the questions you bring up. He doesn't seem to understand sugars very well. He also says that sweet fruits and certain veggies like carrots can contribute to cancer for various reasons l won't go into here), but we have Robert Morse and the Gerson Institute showing otherwise.

From what l understand, these foods feed the cancer in the short term, but then the body makes an adjustment and is able to deal with cancer in the long term.

Brian always talks about fruits and cancer in a short term senario. He talks about looking through microscopes and seeing cancer cells feed off the cancer (short term), but what happens over time? According to Dr Morse, the cells change and are able to deal with this short term problem. Brian also talks much about Eddie-May Hansmeyer and how she developed tumors each year when she ate the sweet fruits, but once again it is only a short term observation.

Brian also says that most people alive today have pancreatic disorders and shouldn't be having any more than 15% of their diet as fruit.

I don't buy into what Brian says about fruit, but l do still promote a low fruit diet because it is usually not ripe and in this day and age the average person needs all the nutritional help they can get. Post harvest fruit always lowers my level, but green juices/fermented sprouts and sea weeds always give me a much higher level of well being - it tells me the real power is in the foods l eat, and the real power isn't in fruit picked weeks before unripe. l believe in eating the highly nutritious foods and just keeping fruit as a small treat once a day. l tried fruitarianism for a short term experiment and it made me a maniac. Something about eating lots of fruit doesn't seem right. Then again, something about eating lots of food doesn't seem right either. In think a couple of small meals is ideal...we don't need to be living to eat, but so many do.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2013 10:40PM by The Sproutarian Man.

Also: if unripe bananas have undesirable characteristics, what does that say about pretty much all fruit sold in shops (largley unripe)? It tells me that shop and farmers market fruit is not as healthy as we think it is because the tree ripening process hasn't been allowed to take full effect, and various things in the fruit are undesirable for high level health. People may do well for a while, but is it sustainable to live on such a diet high in fruit over a lifetime? And it's not only about undesirable characteristics in fruit, it's also nutrient losses and it's low nutrient contribution to the diet in this day and age of high pollution and stress.

The articles l posted hopefully makes people think. That was it's purpose. Unripe fruit is not neccessarily a no toxin food like many think it is. In fact, unripe fruit can be high in tannins, so absorbability of various nutrients can be greatly hindered. And when you add in the indigestable parts of the food, nutritent losses and low nutrient contribution in the modern age...it can be a recipe' for disaster if it forms a large part of ones diet. And if you need to eat very large quantities of fruit each day, this is not going to help either for sustaining high health over a lifetime me think (over eating = shorter life apparently).

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John Rose Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> l haven't opened the links because l have heard
> every Brian Clement lecture on the internet (some
> many times), but l do fully understand the
> questions you bring up. He doesn't seem to
> understand sugars very well. He also says that
> sweet fruits and certain veggies like carrots can
> contribute to cancer for various reasons l won't
> go into here), but we have Robert Morse and the
> Gerson Institute showing otherwise.
>
> From what l understand, these foods feed the
> cancer in the short term, but then the body makes
> an adjustment and is able to deal with cancer in
> the long term.
>
> Brian always talks about fruits and cancer in a
> short term senario. He talks about looking through
> microscopes and seeing cancer cells feed off the
> cancer (short term), but what happens over time?
> According to Dr Morse, the cells change and are
> able to deal with this short term problem. Brian
> also talks much about Eddie-May Hansmeyer and how
> she developed tumors each year when she ate the
> sweet fruits, but once again it is only a short
> term observation.
>
> Brian also says that most people alive today have
> pancreatic disorders and shouldn't be having any
> more than 15% of their diet as fruit.
>
> I don't buy into what Brian says about fruit, but
> l do still promote a low fruit diet because it is
> usually not ripe and in this day and age the
> average person needs all the nutritional help they
> can get. Post harvest fruit always lowers my
> level, but green juices/fermented sprouts and sea
> weeds always give me a much higher level of well
> being - it tells me the real power is in the foods
> l eat, and the real power isn't in fruit picked
> weeks before unripe. l believe in eating the
> highly nutritious foods and just keeping fruit as
> a small treat once a day. l tried fruitarianism
> for a short term experiment and it made me a
> maniac. Something about eating lots of fruit
> doesn't seem right. Then again, something about
> eating lots of food doesn't seem right either. In
> think a couple of small meals is ideal...we don't
> need to be living to eat, but so many do.

So what is left to eat raw?
1. Fruits are not good because they are most of the time unripe.

2. Greens are not good because they contain oxalic acid

3. Carrots are not good because they contain too much sugar

4. Meat and fish? you know why and they cannot be eaten raw

5. Sprouts good but unpractical

6. Avocado too much fat

7. Seeds too much fat

8. water? debate is not settled whether it should be distilled or purified

9. Welcome to forever fast!!!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2013 12:04AM by madinah.

madinah Wrote:

> So what is left to eat raw?
> 1. Fruits are not good because they are most of
> the time unripe.

Just minimise the fruit.


>
> 2. Greens are not good because they contain oxalic
> acid
Not true. Oxalic acid can be reduced by either fermenting the greens and/or sprouting baby greens and using those instead of adult greens. We can tame the savage beast.


>
> 3. Carrots are not good because they contain too
> much sugar
The biggest problem is that they contain disaccharide sugars, which if a person lacks the enzymes to break that sugar down it can be a runaway sugar bypassing the liver and leading to high blood sugar levels.

Too much sugar?? l am not convinced.



> 5. Sprouts good but unpractical
They are not practical, but they are worth the effort. Sprouted foods provides a very satisfying diet - can sprout nuts, seeds, grains and legumes and then ferment them to remove most toxins and massively improve bioavailability of nutrients. PERFECT!!! This is where our main food should be coming from in this day and age - it's nutritious, fresh and we can remove most anti nutrients by careful food processing.


> 6. Avocado too much fat
+ unripe. How can a hard ball transported 1000 miles be healthy?

>
> 7. Seeds too much fat
Not true. Sprout and ferment those seeds and the concentrated fat is converted to fatty acids. Problem solved.

There is plenty to eat, we just need to process many of the foods for easily assimilated nutrients by reducing anti nutrients and breaking down concentrated substances into simplier forms.

madinah Wrote:

> So what is left to eat raw?
> 1. Fruits are not good because they are most of
> the time unripe.

Just minimise the fruit.


>
> 2. Greens are not good because they contain oxalic
> acid
Not true. Oxalic acid can be reduced by either fermenting the greens and/or sprouting baby greens and using those instead of adult greens. We can tame the savage beast.


>
> 3. Carrots are not good because they contain too
> much sugar
The biggest problem is that they contain disaccharide sugars and starches and have lots of fiber, and if a person lacks the enzymes to break the disaccharide sugar down it can be a runaway sugar bypassing the liver and leading to high blood sugar levels. Carrots are a poorly digested food, so it needs to be tamed.

Dr Jubb even says that eating starchy foods like carrots, sprouted grains and beans causes stones to be accumulated in the liver and kidney's which causes malfunctioning on the body, but l can't confirm if this is true. But what we can do to tame those carrots, grains and beans is to ferment them...it breaks down the disaccharide sugars into simplier forms, makes the protein MUCH more digestable (eg, wheat porotein goes from about 28% digestable to over 98% digestable),breaks starches down, breaks harsh fibers down so they are less irritating on the linings of the intestines and could well be less prone to blocking absorption of nutrients, reduces a heap of other anti nutrients etc. Fermenting a carrot even increases absorbability of beta carotene from a carrot by about 600% from one science paper l saw recently.

Too much sugar?? l am not convinced.



> 5. Sprouts good but unpractical
They are not practical, but they are worth the effort. Sprouted foods provides a very satisfying diet - can sprout nuts, seeds, grains and legumes and then ferment them to remove most toxins and massively improve bioavailability of nutrients. PERFECT!!! This is where our main food should be coming from in this day and age - it's nutritious, fresh and we can remove most anti nutrients by careful food processing.


> 6. Avocado too much fat
+ unripe. How can a hard ball transported 1000 miles be healthy?

>
> 7. Seeds too much fat
Not true. Sprout and ferment those seeds and the concentrated fat is converted to fatty acids. Problem solved.

There is plenty to eat, we just need to process many of the foods for easily assimilated nutrients by reducing anti nutrients and breaking down concentrated substances into simplier forms.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2013 12:31AM by The Sproutarian Man.

The Sproutarian Man you are making good points but it means that we have to ferment the food which is not practical. Fermentation takes time and can introduce toxins and bacteria into food when not done properly. We live in an age where people are constantly moving, traveling ...

As l have said, l really dedicated raw food vegan done really well is not convenient and needs to be part of a lifestyle. Being a raw vegan is not convenient for an average person, it is hard work! If we don't do these things many of us are going to end up in a lot of trouble with the vegan diet imo.

The raw vegan diet is promoted as so easy by raw leaders and they make out it is going to be all smooth saling and you will become virtually immortal, but the reality if quite different. l don't like people getting a false sense of security. Doing raw is full on and serious business.

l just hope people will see things in a more realistic light, that's why l am here. l want people questioning their raw mentors more and to start thinking more about things. l think it is really important to move onto the next level now, we now have the knowledge to be able to do that.

Good points sproutarian man. Rawfood diet is not for the weak

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the entire Vegan diet is weak. The entire
> diet of omnivore is weak. It's all crude. That's
> why I feel like it's the only way for me. Im not
> rich and dont have the social connections or even
> perhaps the health to go on a mostly fruit diet.
> yet.

Weak ???

Who has a working raw diet plan and can testify on this forum "this is what I do every day and it works and I am 90+ percent raw" ?

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> madinah Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > THeSt0rm Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I think the entire Vegan diet is weak. The
> > entire
> > > diet of omnivore is weak. It's all crude.
> > That's
> > > why I feel like it's the only way for me. Im
> > not
> > > rich and dont have the social connections or
> > even
> > > perhaps the health to go on a mostly fruit
> > diet.
> > > yet.
> >
> > Weak ???
> >
> > Who has a working raw diet plan and can testify
> on
> > this forum "this is what I do every day and it
> > works and I am 90+ percent raw" ?
>
>
> Seems like the sproutarians are close. But
> thinking about it its probably not perfect and its
> sad for me to think that there is probably no such
> thing as a perfect diet for humans as its all
> crude.
>
> Even as a sproutarian you need to first sprout...
> thats not enough. You need to ferment. If thats
> not enough then blend. If thats not enough then
> juice.
>
> And as for fruits... yeah many problems with all
> fruit diet as well it seems.
>
> If anything it seems humans were originally not
> meant to eat at all.

If you are able to minimise your food over time and live on small meals of sprouted/fermented seeds and fermented sea weeds and some green juices, then that is as good as it gets imo. That is not crude eating because we are eating highly absorbable food.

But eating vegetables, nuts and seeds straight without processing is crude eating, and eating shop bought food makes a mockery of the whole raw vegan movement.

Imo, we humans lost our way and forgot who we are, so we plunged from the heights as breatharians and paid the price by feeding off physical foods instead of feeding off light and sound vibrations. The garden of eden concept seems possible - we took on the toxins of eating food and lost our physical, mental and spiritual health...and now we are just earth bound crazies with no pineal gland functioning to higher planes.

Using your third eye makes you remember who you are and the power we all have. Perfection all comes from within, not from food or magic remedies. Unfortunately we are so sick that we need to rely on food because our spiritual functioning can't access much of the cosmic radiation as food anymore....some can access the cosmic radiation (they are almost breatharian...l know them personally), but most are lost in the wilderness.

Sound like a crazy theory? Ugh ugh. There will be a time one day when you will remember. l slightly remember and i've been told what we really are by `them', much like people like Hotema and Kulvinskas were told about the perfection of man and his downfall. If people were only aware.

Clean the pineal gland folks! See the light and remember who you are.

what about that pineal gland detoxing/cleaning thing? Some of you have tried and succeeded?

lifting layers and layers of ignorance, veils after veils of foggy perceptions to reach the light within
I'm dreaming - we shoud all try
How do we do it?

love
Cynthia

You know...the more l study into hybridised foods, the more l know Dr David Jubb is right about the anti nutrients and runaway sugars bypassing the liver, salivary and intestinal digestive enzymes and potentially having consequences on the body. A problem with bananas is that anti nutritional oligosaccharide sugars will be undigested and poor utilisation of these sugars. Yes, these sugars are eventually broken down by intestinal bacteria, but they are not broken down by intestinal mucosal enzymes therefore the intestinal bacteria will result in the production of hydrogen and methane gasses and you can get wind from non digestion if you eat enough of them.

So many hybridised foods cause these types of problems, but we can tame the ill effects of hybridised foods by various food processing measures that can largely eliminate the runaway sugars.

Eating 50 bananas a day is definitely not a good idea.


While this link is not directly related to bananas, it does talk about the effects of oligosaccharides/dissacharides.

Evolution and kinetics of monosaccharides, dissaccharides, and alfa galactosides during germination of lentils

Cliff.L.Hedley

[link.springer.com]

Also this (see close to bottom of link):
Galacto-oligosaccharides and bowel function

Leena Niittynen, Kajsa Kajander, and Riitta Korpela
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

I've planted many banana trees when I was living in South America and I never leave them to ripen on the tree because the birds and ants and bees and other insects will eat most of it. I think most if not all farmers do not leave bananas to ripen on the tree.

The last sentence applies to where I grew up.

Wow, so right about all the unripe stuff out there. I was told that bananas were one of the fruits that could ripen properly off the tree?

I think you have to use some common sense when listening to B.C. lecture. I wish I could state this in depth but having brain fog. B.C. just wants people to know the larger scope of the effects of sugar with-in a state of extreme health challenges. At HHI they have to produce positive blood work to be credible and to do so a certain percent of the population has to stay off fruit. That's what they found, not all people but a percentage I think was 25% Now if you are a health educator like HHI do you say, well go ahead and eat fruit and we will see how you do? or do you just take them all off of fruit to ensure them the best results possible? I think the later. First and foremost they need to produce results! and trust me they do. I think if they did not they might not even be around and thriving as they have. Possibly the government would have shut them down by know. They have three weeks to produce good blood work there so the long term fruit idea does not work for them. If you had ADVANCED cancer and the Doctors said go home and die would you go to HHI and want to gamble on using fruit or play it safe and go with greens?

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Cliff.L.Hedley
>
> [link.springer.com]
> 1#page-1

Funny enough, the link that is coming up (above in quote) is not the link l originally posted. The science link l posted was much longer and more detailed.

Important thing to think about
When Dr Jubb says that dissaccharide sugars (in mango, bananas, pineapple, carrots etc) are not found in nature, it looks like this is probably correct because mankind's carbohydrate digesting enzymes are not recognising these sugars at all according to science, neither is the body able to digest these sugars at other points throughout the body.

And when we combine the runaway sugars with the tannins in many unripe fruits, we get a whole heap of sugar that's being nondigested because it is now known that tannins bind with sugars recognised by the body as well as the unrecognised runaway sugars. So contrary to common belief, many fruits are not near as digestable as people think they are because carbs, amino acids, various minerals and even fatty acids can be bound up to some extent. So when we use cronometers to measure our nutrient intake we are fooling ourselves because it doesn't take into account bioavailable nutrients amoung many other important factors.

AND...when Brian Clement looks through a microscope and sees all this excess blood sugar in people's bodies not being utilised, and how it is putting a strain on the pancreas, it all makes sense. There is no doubt that hybridisation has brought about an increase in non utilised sugars.

Hybridisation has increased tannins, increased runaway sugars, increased alkaloids, increased phytic acid Ip5' and Ip6's, increased aflatoxins and many other things. See...mass food growing and delivery systems don't work!!!...there are consequences. Mass food growing systems bring about increased anti nutrients and substances the body doesn't recognise.

An interesting discovery the other day. Fermentation can and does reduce various alkaloids. WOW! Fermentation can't reduce all anti nutrients, but it can help bring back food to a more original state in terms of reducing many anti nutrients and converting runaway sugars to usuable sugars.

Another interesting thing was brought to my attention the other day also. The highly dibious mung bean sprout that is poorly digested by people and causes gas has been much better tolerated (better digestion and no gas) when sprouted and fermented. The chitinase looks like it was over come and the runaway sugars are possibly gone.

If people think that natural hygiene is man eating what he was intended to eat, forget it. It is not the same food anymore...lots of problems with it. We tampered with the food supply and introduced mass delivery growing methods, and now the karma has come back to bite us. The fruit eaters can't escape it, the veggie eaters can't escape it, the sproutarians can't escape it. BUT we can eat nutritious fresh foods that feed the body on very little, eat fresh, ferment, do weights to keep the muscle and body built up, and fast = this is a good way.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2013 12:10AM by The Sproutarian Man.

I find this all very interesting guys thanks!

And again I'll say that not even the vegies that I can get here in florida at Whole Foods Market are worth a dam! most of the time. They DO have LOADS OF FRUIT though LOL. They keep that stocked up well and quite fresh it seems. It seems to be easier to keep fresh ripe fruit than vegies, or the fruit sells better LOL.

I feel sorry for the human race having to struggle for healthy food when in fact we are the ones responsible for making it unhealthy LOL.

Sitting down to eat some REALLY vibrant vegies raw with nothing on them is an awesome experience, one that I don't get that often anymore-Florida is not very good for this. If you live close to CA. then you might get better stuff but not here.

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Important thing to think about
> When Dr Jubb says that dissaccharide sugars (in
> mango, bananas, pineapple, carrots etc) are not
> found in nature, it looks like this is probably
> correct because mankind's carbohydrate digesting
> enzymes are not recognising these sugars at all
> according to science, neither is the body able to
> digest these sugars at other points throughout the
> body.
>
> And when we combine the runaway sugars with the
> tannins in many unripe fruits, we get a whole heap
> of sugar that's being nondigested because it is
> now known that tannins bind with sugars recognised
> by the body as well as the unrecognised runaway
> sugars. So contrary to common belief, many fruits
> are not near as digestable as people think they
> are because carbs, amino acids, various minerals
> and even fatty acids can be bound up to some
> extent. So when we use cronometers to measure our
> nutrient intake we are fooling ourselves because
> it doesn't take into account bioavailable
> nutrients amoung many other important factors.
>
> AND...when Brian Clement looks through a
> microscope and sees all this excess blood sugar in
> people's bodies not being utilised, and how it is
> putting a strain on the pancreas, it all makes
> sense. There is no doubt that hybridisation has
> brought about an increase in non utilised sugars.
>
>
> Hybridisation has increased tannins, increased
> runaway sugars, increased alkaloids, increased
> phytic acid Ip5' and Ip6's, increased aflatoxins
> and many other things. See...mass food growing and
> delivery systems don't work!!!...there are
> consequences. Mass food growing systems bring
> about increased anti nutrients and substances the
> body doesn't recognise.
>
> An interesting discovery the other day.
> Fermentation can and does reduce various
> alkaloids. WOW! Fermentation can't reduce all anti
> nutrients, but it can help bring back food to a
> more original state in terms of reducing many anti
> nutrients and converting runaway sugars to usuable
> sugars.
>
> Another interesting thing was brought to my
> attention the other day also. The highly dibious
> mung bean sprout that is poorly digested by people
> and causes gas has been much better tolerated
> (better digestion and no gas) when sprouted and
> fermented. The chitinase looks like it was over
> come and the runaway sugars are possibly gone.
>
> If people think that natural hygiene is man eating
> what he was intended to eat, forget it. It is not
> the same food anymore...lots of problems with it.
> We tampered with the food supply and introduced
> mass delivery growing methods, and now the karma
> has come back to bite us. The fruit eaters can't
> escape it, the veggie eaters can't escape it, the
> sproutarians can't escape it. BUT we can eat
> nutritious fresh foods that feed the body on very
> little, eat fresh, ferment, do weights to keep the
> muscle and body built up, and fast = this is a
> good way.

Are you saying we should not eat fruits? Oh my !! what is left?

Sproutarian, I will disagree with your assertion that "...mankind's carbohydrate digesting enzymes are not recognizing disaccharide sugars according to science, neither is the body able to digest these sugars at other points throughout the body. "

The sugar in fruit is sucrose, the most widely distributed of the disaccharides in nature (the other disaccharides being lactose in animals' breast milk and maltose formed by partial hydrolysis of starch - like in beer and malt liquors).

Sucrose is composed of the two monosaccharides glucose and fructose. Keep in mind when reading the following that any word ending in "ase" is a digestive enzyme, formed by our own bodies for the purpose of breaking down (digesting) specific corresponding food components (Ex: Lactase breaks down lactose).

According to Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism, 5th Ed., by Gropper, Smith, and Groff, 2009:

"DIGESTION OF DISACCHARIDES...

"Virtually no digestion of disaccharides or small oligosaccharides occurs in the mouth or stomach. In the human, digestion (of disaccharides) takes place entirely in the upper small intestine...Among the enzymes located on the mucosal cells are lactase, sucrase, maltase, and isomaltase... Sucrase hydrolyzes sucrose to yield one glucose and one fructose residue. Maltase hydrolyzes maltose to yield two glucose. Isomaltase hydrolyzes the alpha bond of isomaltose, the branch-point disaccharide remaining from the incomplete breakdown of amylopectin; the products are two molecules of glucose."

(Amylopectin is a component of starch).

"Lactase catalyzes the cleavage of lactose to equimolar amounts of galactose and glucose...Lactase activity is high in infants. In most mammals, including humans, the activity of lactase decreases a few years after weaning."

I hope the above will clarify that disaccharides, and specifically the sucrose found in fruits are indeed recognized and digested by digestive enzymes in the human body.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2013 06:45PM by suncloud.

Thank you for the clarification. I was getting alarmed.

suncloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sproutarian, I will disagree with your assertion
> that "...mankind's carbohydrate digesting enzymes
> are not recognizing disaccharide sugars according
> to science, neither is the body able to digest
> these sugars at other points throughout the body.
> "
>
> The sugar in fruit is sucrose, the most widely
> distributed of the disaccharides in nature (the
> other disaccharides being lactose in animals'
> breast milk and maltose formed by partial
> hydrolysis of starch - like in beer and malt
> liquors).
>
> Sucrose is composed of the two monosaccharides
> glucose and fructose. Keep in mind when reading
> the following that any word ending in "ase" is a
> digestive enzyme, formed by our own bodies for the
> purpose of breaking down (digesting) specific
> corresponding food components (Ex: Lactase breaks
> down lactose).
>
> According to Advanced Nutrition and Human
> Metabolism, 5th Ed., by Gropper, Smith, and Groff,
> 2009:
>
> "DIGESTION OF DISACCHARIDES...
>
> "Virtually no digestion of disaccharides or small
> oligosaccharides occurs in the mouth or stomach.
> In the human, digestion (of disaccharides) takes
> place entirely in the upper small
> intestine...Among the enzymes located on the
> mucosal cells are lactase, sucrase, maltase, and
> isomaltase... Sucrase hydrolyzes sucrose to yield
> one glucose and one fructose residue. Maltase
> hydrolyzes maltose to yield two glucose.
> Isomaltase hydrolyzes the alpha bond of
> isomaltose, the branch-point disaccharide
> remaining from the incomplete breakdown of
> amylopectin; the products are two molecules of
> glucose."
>
> (Amylopectin is a component of starch).
>
> "Lactase catalyzes the cleavage of lactose to
> equimolar amounts of galactose and
> glucose...Lactase activity is high in infants. In
> most mammals, including humans, the activity of
> lactase decreases a few years after weaning."
>
> I hope the above will clarify that disaccharides,
> and specifically the sucrose found in fruits are
> indeed recognized and digested by digestive
> enzymes in the human body.

Thanks for bringing this up, and l have not forgotten about getting back to you about this very important subject. I'll get back to this at a later date when l have spare time to devote to this topic.