I spoke to a raw mama recently who said that she doesn't eat greens. She only eats fruits and a few nuts and that's it. She is also a mono eater. I thought that greens were needed to prevent certein defeciencies? I'm very new to this so I may be wrong - but can someone explain this?

____________________________________

~Christi~
Natural Living Info
AP/NL mama to Jacob 10/25/2006

Most commerical fruits are nutrient deficient, so greens provide a good balancing factor. [www.vibrancy.homestead.com]

Hi Pyratekk,

I'm just guessing, but your friend may have a hard time with greens. I do, but I try to eat them anyway because I get hungry after a few days if I don't. They help me stay satisfied on a raw food diet, and I like them.

Even a diet high in a variety of fruit and nuts is very possibly lacking something without greens. I'm just basing that on my experience of getting so hungry when I go without vegetables.

I don't really know whether a fruit and nut/seed diet without greens is actually lacking in some of the known essential nutrients or whether there is something more subtle and as yet scientifically undiscovered at play.

In response to djatchi, I eat almost all organic fruits that I grow myself, plus enough seeds and sometimes nuts to satisfy my protein needs. Yet I still feel deficient if I don't eat greens. Are there any essential nutrients that you know of that can't be found in fruits and nuts/seeds but CAN be found in vegetables? I'm playing with this theory that there's possibly something more subtle going on. What do you and other greens fans think?

This is a very interesting question to me.

PS: I think I may be having less trouble with vegetables, now that I'm soaking and sprouting all my fatty seeds, but I haven't been doing this long enough yet to say for sure.

MAYBE chlorophyll is one of the most important substances that are found in greens but not in fruits and nuts.

Chlorophyll is not considered an "essential nutrient", but chlorophyll is an essential ingredient for producing the oxygen that is the basis of all "higher " plant and animal life. It would seem to make sense that consuming chlorophyll in it's live form (contained in fresh greens) could very well play a very important and even essential role in our health.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2007 01:52AM by suncloud.

Sunclound, the same thing for me. I need greens.

I have not done any research on this but I think the reason greens are vital to health is the chlorophyll molecule which is vey similar to the structure in our red blood cell.

Quote

Chlorophyll has a chemical structure that is quite similar to a chemical structure found within our red blood cells. A basic difference is the fact that this structure (called a porphyrin ring) contains an atom of iron at its center when it is found in our red blood cells, but when it is found in plants, it contains an atom of magnesium at the center

[www.whfoods.com]
The chlorophyll molecule captures wavelength of lights from the sun and the leaves use that energy to feed the plant. The function of the fruit is to be dispersed to grow a new plant or tree, their main nutrients are in the seeds.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2007 02:06AM by djatchi.

Plants (their structural parts) are exquisite (as opposed to their fruits) because they can't run from the elements. They have to have a lot of built-in protection, and we get some of that, too, when we eat them.

We get such powerful protection when we eat the structural parts of plants. They probably provide more protection from cancers than any other types of foods. They are also richer in minerals.

My thoughts are that you can manage without them, but you probably do better with them. It doesn't have to be a lot by kcals (and it probably can't even if you could afford it, because of volume issues).

Arugula so true, so deep

Greens have been SO healing for me. According to Dr. Jubb we don't really need them, but David Wolfe points out that they can be very important during the cleaning and healing process and intimates that once the body gets to a certain good state of natural health then the greens are not so necessary. As for me, I'm still feeling I need 1-2 lbs. of greens a day (which I blend with fruits or avos).

Pyratekk, for me, if some food is not appealing, I won't eat it. So, I would not force-feed myself to eat something because someone says that there is some nutrient in it that I need. At the same time, I practice the habit of testing foods that I might have thought of as unapealing just to check whether I might like them now. And, I have certainly made some interesting discoveries using this method. I had times when all I wanted to eat was fruit and greens seemed totally unattractive, and days, when I really wanted to chew on something green. I think it is not helpful to stick to some preconceived routine. I'd rather experiment, observe ad learn.


Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

i love this thread.

during summer months im drawn to greens almost daily.
a head of romaine, spinich or celery.

however the dog im fostering eats grass every chance
she gets and the last one ate a head of romaine for
desert every night. both had been through life threatening
trauma and perhaps needed it for additional healing.

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pyratekk, for me, if some food is not appealing, I
> won't eat it. So, I would not force-feed myself to
> eat something because someone says that there is
> some nutrient in it that I need. At the same time,
> I practice the habit of testing foods that I might
> have thought of as unapealing just to check
> whether I might like them now. And, I have
> certainly made some interesting discoveries using
> this method. I had times when all I wanted to eat
> was fruit and greens seemed totally unattractive,
> and days, when I really wanted to chew on
> something green. I think it is not helpful to
> stick to some preconceived routine. I'd rather
> experiment, observe ad learn.
>
>
> Gosia


What about PREPARING the food to make it appealing?
Mothers do that for food not naturally appealing to kids.
One good argument for fruitarism has been that our human constitution, our hand are naturally made for eating fruits. But the creator gave us another important tool which made unecessary to have sharp teeth for hunting: intelligence
We can use that intelligence to make food appealing and not be restricted to fruits.

Arugula and others,

Actually, my biggest concern of greens is what I read from this website years ago and I still remember it now.

[www.youngerthanyourage.com]

Can I know about your opinions on this?

All the best,
wong



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2007 03:54AM by blue_sky.

"What about PREPARING the food to make it appealing? "

Yes, this can be very effective. What comes to my mind is cooked meat, for example. If some food is unappealing to my senses in its natural (raw, unprocessed) state, then I will trust my senses.

"Mothers do that for food not naturally appealing to kids. "

Yes, it is a standard practice of teaching kids to eat foods that they are not naturally driven to eat. I've been guilty of this too. These days, I let my children have their say in how they want to eat their food. They are intelligent and learn from their own experience too. I observe this all the time.

"We can use that intelligence to make food appealing and not be restricted to fruits."

You seem to be assuming that I promote fruitarianism. It isn't so. I promote following the nature. I promote freedom. It is a joy to be able to eat foods that taste great and make me feel great. For me a restriction is to force myself to eat foods that my body does not want to.

"But the creator gave us another important tool which made unecessary to have sharp teeth for hunting: intelligence "

Well, if we go into religion, then there is more than intelligence that our creator gave us - compassion, for example.

As far as intelligence, I like to practice observing the nature intensly and use my intelligence to learn. My intellignece has led me to where I am at now.


Fruitfully,
Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Be reassured, I am not into relegion, you can replace creator with Source or whatever was at the beginning.

"Smart people break the norm, and do not just copy what all others do."

My indoor greens (wheatgrass, sunflowers, buckwheat, and sprouts) are not appealing to eat in their natural state but I have learned to make delicious raw meals out of them. The effort is worth the health benefit I will derive from them. I have many friends and family members who have kept the norm and stayed on the SAD and would usually go for the most appealing thing to grab and eat.

djatchi
i want to get more into growing and eating my own greens.
can you tell me what recipes do you use for your delicious raw meals?
thanks!

djatchi, going back to the beginning leads us to our frugivorous ancestors.

I have nothing against people liking to eat anything they wish. In my choices though, I would not choose raw foods that do not taste good. I have no motivation to eat wheatgrass, for example.

This tactic does not work in reverse. As you have noticed, people used to eat cooked foods, might like them, and might even think that those cooked foods are appealing. Nevertheless, they are oblivious to the signals that body does give when those foods are consumed. For example, pizza may seem appealing to the mind of a cooked foodist, but it is never appealing to the body of that person. Once a person truly connects with their body, they will be able to notice this. Becoming a raw foodist allows for developing the sensitivity required for that to occur.


Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

blue_sky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Arugula and others,
>
> Actually, my biggest concern of greens is what I
> read from this website years ago and I still
> remember it now.
>
> [www.youngerthanyourage.com]
>
> Can I know about your opinions on this?

Thais has some interesting opinions, but I don't share
all of them. He throws out too much and includes some
things that should not be included.

There is some mild evidence that you may benefit from
omitting cooked starches (grains, corn, tubers). You
will have better lipid profile and colon function if
you do so.

There is also some mild evidence that you may benefit
from omitting cooked legumes because some aminos
are damaged on cooking.

But I don't see any good reason to omit leaves. In
many studies they have been shown to be more protective
than fruits. They also serve to provide a source of
minerals and protective phytochemicals that are not
generally in as high amounts in fruits. Leaves have
the highest nutrient density of all foods.

He lumps these all together in the "plants" category, but
there are degrees of "goodness" and "badness."

I ask you this: Why would it be good to omit leaves,
but to add the micronutrient voids of refined oils and
refined sugars, as he suggests?

Also I think the insistence on raw animal products is
very risky. They are vectors for a number of microbial
diseases, nematodes, and some bigger worms.

But I think he is right when he suggests that cooked
foods should be limited or eliminated. He emphasizes
the badness of cooked proteins but cooked fats are
probably the worse evil, based on the Vlassara glycation
papers, which stem from a very vigorous line of thought
rather than mere speculations.

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> djatchi, going back to the beginning leads us to
> our frugivorous ancestors.
>
>
> Gosia

Where is the proof or findings on this? Or are you going far back to the bible and the allegorical Adam and Eve and the symbolical Apple?

Why the frugivorous ancestors stop eating fruits if that diet was working for them?

Fossil evidence and drawings show that our ancestors were hunters.
[news.bbc.co.uk]

Debbie
I will provide more info on some of my recipes at some point when I have time but remember that greens combine well with any food group (fruit, nuts, roots) which make it easy to use them in your favorite meals. It all depends on what you like to eat. If you are into juicing them you could juice them and mix the juice with other more palatable juices. If you like salad them you could use the greens in your salad as base or as dressing using a blender. Or you could use them in green smoothies.
You could make hummus with your greens and use the hummus with celery or carrots as a snack. There are many ways to use greens.
Let even assume you are transitioning from SAD to raw food and still eat some cook food or fish or meat. If you make a raw soup with your indoor greens and combine that with your meal then suddenly that SAD meal become more digestable with more enzymes and raw and fresh nutrients, a huge improvement. So it is a matter of personal choice and sense of creativity. [www.sproutman.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2007 04:00PM by djatchi.

"Where is the proof or findings on this?"

Proofs are only in hard sciences (e.g. mathematics). I think what you mean is the empirical evidence. Note that frugivorous ancestry of humans has been acknowledged by the modern science:

"Anthropoids, including all great apes, take most of their diet from plants, and there is general consensus that humans come from a strongly herbivorous ancestry." [7 ]"Humans and apes are remarkably similar biologically. In the wild, apes and monkeys consume diets composed largely of plant foods, primarily the fruits and leaves of tropical forest trees and vines. Considerable evidence indicates that the ancestral line giving rise to humans (Homo spp.) was likewise strongly herbivorous (plant-eating)."[6] In fact, "Humans are ancestrally derived from frugivorous primates".[3] "Study of the diet of frugivorous human ancestors is accordingly of relevance to understanding the nutritional requirements of modern humans".([icb.oxfordjournals.org]) A frugivorous dietary heritage of humans is frequently posited.[1][2][3][4] The molar morphology of the earliest hominins implies "a fairly frugivorous diet".[5] The widespread prevalence of diet-related health problems, particularly in highly industrialized nations, suggests that many humans are not eating in a manner compatible with their biology and consumption of more fresh fruit is recommended.([www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov])


"Fossil evidence and drawings show that our ancestors were hunters."

That hunter-gatherer phase is not the origins, but only a phase, the original human diet was frugivorous, as cited above. Note that "Comparative data suggests that human nutrient requirements and most features of human digestive morphology and physiology are conservative in nature and probably were little affected by the hunter-gatherer phase of human existence."[6]


(1) "Fruits, fingers, and fermentation: The sensory cues available to foraging primates", Dominy NJ, Integrative and Comparative Biol 44 (4): 295-303 AUG 2004
(2) "Ferment in the family tree: Does a frugivorous dietary heritage influence contemporary patterns of human ethanol use?", Milton K, Integrative and Comparative Biol 44 (4): 304-314 AUG 2004
(3) "Ethanol, fruit ripening, and the historical origins of human alcoholism in primate frugivory", Dadley R, Integrative and Comparative Biol 44 (4): 315-323 AUG 2004
(4) "Evolutionary origins of human alcoholism in primate frugivory", Dadley R, Q Rev Biol. 2000 Mar;75(1):3-15)
(5) "Origin of Human Bipedalism: The Knuckle-Walking Hypothesis Revisited", BG Richmond, DR Begun, DS Strait; Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 44:70-105(2001)[1]
(6) "Back to basics: why foods of wild primates have relevance for modern human health", Milton K, Nutrition, July 2000 (Vol. 16, Issue 7, Pages 480-483)
(7)"Nutritional characteristics of wild primate foods: do the diets of our closest living relatives have lessons for us?", Milton K, Nutrition, June 1999 (Vol. 15, Issue 6, Pages 488-498)


Fruitfully,
Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Also there is a speculative paper on diet and prostate cancer by Coffey:

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

"Approximately 7 million years ago humans evolved from a common ape ancestor, with our closest relative being the pigmy chimpanzee called the bonobo. Like the other great apes, the bonobo eats primarily fruits and vegetables and no meat. Other types of chimpanzees occasionally eat meat as opportunist scavengers, sometimes even with very limited hunting. Even in humans, highly effective hunting was not the major source of high meat caloric intake until later in human development. When early hominoids such as “Lucy” came down from the trees 4 million years ago and began to roam the savannas, they picked up the ability to become hunter-gatherers. This hunting was still at the most primitive level until approximately 12,000 years ago when the dog was brought into human hunting society, which tremendously increased the ability to catch animals, owing to the dog’s speed and olfactory abilities.

"This major phase shift in food style occurred only about 10,000 years ago, when humans became farmers and domesticated both plants and animals. This technology quickly evolved into a tighter focusing of human diets from wild fresh vegetables and fruits to an eating pattern toward limited plants that could be domesticated and grown in great quantities and stored, like wheat, rice, barley, corn, potatoes, and other tubers. This resulted in approximately 20 plant types rapidly replacing the high diversity of .3,000 plants and fruits that were earlier eaten fresh as they came into season and were gathered from the wild. With large-scale domestication and breeding of cattle came a high meat intake, and this was combined with storage, curing, drying, and cooking as well as a propensity to use milk and cheese from dairy processing. Cooking, burning, and smoking produce high levels of heterocyclic molecules, many of which make adducts to DNA, and are carcinogens.

"Since separating from the great apes and chimpanzees approximately 8 million years ago, humans evolved into Homo sapiens sapiens that are very similar to our present form in little as 150,000 years. However, we dramatically changed to a Western-style diet only in the very recent past (ie, 15,000 years)—at a pace much faster than we could biologically evolve (Table V). This Western diet consists of high meat and fat; dairy products; stored, processed, and cooked meats; and low fruit and fiber intake, along with a more sedentary lifestyle.

"In summary, we were not biologically selected by the evolution process to eat the way we do today, and the damage is manifested in prostate and breast cancer. Indeed, all of the present suggestions of the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society as to how Americans might reduce their chances of getting prostate and breast cancer revolve around adapting dietary changes in our lifestyle back toward the early human diet of more fruits; a variety of fresh vegetables and fiber; less burning, cooking, and processing; diminished intake of dairy products, red meat, and animal fats, as well as decreasing weight and increasing aerobic exercise. That is, we must return to a diet and lifestyle that more closely matches the first 135,000 years before technology modified our lifestyle and diet."

TABLE V. Human development and the
change of diet

Time During Human Development
(150,000 years)

-----------------First 90% (135,000 years)--- Last 10% (15,000 years)
Fruit:---------------High---------------------------Low
Fiber:--------------High---------------------------Low
Plant diversity:-High (3000)---------------Low (20)
Red meat: -------Low--------------------------High
Animal fat: -------Low--------------------------High
Dairy products:--Low ------------------------High
Food:----------------Fresh/wild---------------Cooked/preserved
Movement: --------High------------------------Sedentary

Dadley conclusions may be inconsistent with the larger anatomy of our ancestors as new findings show. Vegetables may have been the dominant diet not just fruits

Quote

Interpretation of the adaptive profile of ancestral primates is controversial and has been constrained for decades by general acceptance of the premise that the first primates were very small

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2007 03:07AM by djatchi.

Djatchi, the paper you are quoting is in support of frugivorous origin of the primates,as opposed to the insectivorous origin (which smaller anatomy would have suggested), see inside the paper:

"At over 1 kg ancestral primates would have weighed in well above Kay's Threshold and clearly would not have been able to subsist on a primarily insectivorous diet. Instead, fruit and similar foods must have formed the major component of the diet, supplemented by either insects or, conceivably, young buds and leaves as protein sources. In this context, it is also noteworthy that the relatively subtle shifts in molar morphology associated with the emergence of primates, such as a general lowering and rounding of cusps, are most compatible with a frugivorous ancestry of the order. General aspects of gut morphology such as the relative size of the colon and retention of a caecum, further support the notion of a largely vegetarian ancestor to the living primates (Martin, 1990), and comparative investigations of orbital convergence and brain structure and of ecological correlates of sociality in primates and other mammals have recently also added to the evidence suggesting that the last common ancestor of living primates was primarily frugivorous (Barton, 2004 and Müller and Soligo, 2005)."


Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

You have a point Rawgosia but could it be that the primates discovered early that a frutarian diet was not enough to sustain a bigger anatomy and they had to resort to hunting and other methods for survival?

Not plausible. The evidence suggests that early primates were frugivorous, and their diet was more than sufficent to sustain them.

"We suggest the following revised synthesis of the adaptive nature of primate origins: A substantial increase in body mass in the primate stem lineage marked a defining step towards the evolution of the characteristic set of primate adaptations. As size increased to a mass of around 1 kg or more, functional claws were reduced to nails, the modern hind-limb dominated mode of primate locomotion evolved, and ancestral primates adapted to a largely vegetarian diet. Adaptations of the visual apparatus facilitated the consumption of small items of vegetable matter, primarily fruit. The shift towards a vegetarian diet and a strong dependency on fleshy fruit coincided with increased angiosperm diversity and the evolution of larger fruit size during the Late Cretaceous. At this stage, members of the lineage leading to the last common ancestor of living primates had evolved the major external characteristics that define primates of modern aspect: flattened nails on prehensile extremities, and forward-facing eyes. Animals at this stage should be regarded as the first ecological members of the order Primates."

Can the fact that cooked food diet was introduced on a large scale 10,000 years ago be treated as the evidence that at that time raw food diet was no longer biologically suitable for humans? Clearly no. Rather, it is the evidence of humans choosing to divert from their natural diet. Similarly, humans diverging from their original frugivorous diet is the evidence of their choice, possibly due to migration to less fruitfull places, rather than any problems with the diet itself.

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

My eleven year old and I were just talking about how we think all humans lived in tropical environments and then migrated. I would love to go back to living like that.

Fruitigirl- I have had the same experience with severly underwieght, homeless dogs and cats. They eat a lot of greens. They always seem to be flushing their bodies for about two weeks before they finally settle in and start gaining weight. Anytime any of the animals are not digesting properly they go eat grass or other kinds of plants. Then they usually throw up.