The way we should imitate other animals is not WHAT they eat, but the fact that they eat the diet that supports them.


What primates eat can be a clue for us, but I don't believe we necessarily need the same diet.

so true.

Nora stated: "There are no fruitarian animals"

That is not true in the least. Nora, you should work in a wildlife reserve, or at least visit one before you speak. and yes, these diets are studied from the wild before the animal is ever brought to the reserve. (cuz I know you always have an argument to try to prove your point.....)


Many birds eat exclusively fruits, such as wild berries, A number of the primates, for example the Gray-bellied Night Monkey, the Ring-tailed Lemur, and the White-headed Capuchin are frugivores.

You can even contact a full sized zoo for that information.

dont forget about the fruitbats !

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Do fruit flies count as an animal?

Here's a Fruitarian animal that is rarely spotted!!!

[www.youtube.com]

Ha ha ha!


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

I understand what Nora is saying. Myself, I find that the moment I limit myself to some concept, be it fruitarian or other, I feel restricted. By far I prefer intensly listening to my instincts and following them. And yes, I do find myself drawn to fruit. I can't deny what my body tells me.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

basil Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>You dont want to
> be jacked up on sugar all the time!

one does not get jacked up on sugar, necessarily.
it is quite possible and comfortable to eat a lot of fruit and have it properly metabolized without getting jacked up.


> Bryan clement
> from Hipocrates Health Institute reccomends that
> your diet should not consist of more than 15%
> fruit. he is a man that really knows what he's
> talking about!

At this time, I am not so convinced that he knows what he's talking about.

I just received an email from HHI, regarding a recent study supporting his position.

HHI (run by Brian Clement) claims that:

- Fruit contributes to and/or causes cancer
- Eating a high amount of fruit causes fermentation, which feeds cancer cells
- Elevated blood sugar level is a risk factor for developing several types of cancer
- Fruit should be extremely limited in the diet

quote from HHI:

HHI removed fruit, fruit juices and high fructose
vegetables like carrots and beets from the diets of our guests
afflicted with cancer. This move clearly and dramatically raised the
bar on the battle against this dreaded disease. In those early days,
we were thought to be wrong, without scientific evidence to prove our
findings. As you will now see, mainstream science has finally arrived
at the same conclusion. Sugar does affect the potential and the
outcome of cancer.

Below is a description of the scientific study recently touted by HHI as supporting their position:

Elevated blood sugar levels and diabetes are risk factors for developing several types of cancer and mortality, according to researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Yonsei University in Seoul, Korea. The researchers followed over 1.2 million Koreans for 10 years, tracking new cancer cases and following the death rate caused by this disease. For those without diabetes, cancer risk (rose with) increased fasting blood sugar level. The study is published in the January 12, 2005 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

The risk of developing cancer was comparable to the risk of dying from cancer. The group with the highest fasting glucose levels (greater than 140 mg/dL) had higher death rates from all cancers combined.

This study provides more information on glucose intolerance, an emerging cause of cancer. It points to increased cancer risk as another adverse consequence of rising obesity around the world," concluded, Sun Ha Jee, PhD, MHS, lead author of the study and an adjunct assistant professor in the Bloomberg School of Public Health's Department of Epidemiology and an assistant professor of Epidemiology and Cisease Control at Yonsei University.


MY Analysis:

- To draw the conclusion that a correlation between fasting blood sugar level and cancer mortality means that blood sugar level is a CAUSE of cancer is simply invalid. There are a whole host of bodily conditions that cause the body to form cancer cells. And an association between two variables does not in any way imply causation.

- To then take the position from the above that fruit must be limited is simply without any basis whatsoever. Even if the correlation is valid, any number of factors can cause elevated blood sugar, including fat intake and many other factors. To blame fruit is simply bad science.

- HHI claims that eating a high amount of fruit causes fermentation, which feeds cancer cells. They do not quantify or qualify their belief. In order to be taken seriously, this must be defined. Bodily indicators of fermentation should be described. What is deemed as a high amount of fruit should be defined. They do neither. Also, fermentation is a natural process that occurs in ruminants and primates to varying degrees in various parts of the digestive apparatus. To demonize fermentation without specifying where it occurs, to what level, and to what effect, is showing a lack of attention to detail.
In fact, fermentation is a normal process that releases nutrients and positively impacts the flora. Some negative effects may result from it, but it is not valid to claim fruit causes fermentation causes cancer. Finally, many animals have a lot of fermentation going on, without cancer being promoted.

- Wild chimp diet. A large part of many chimps diets consists of pawpaws, figs and honey. An analysis of these items indicates that their sugar level is on par with bananas. Bananas would be considered a high sugar fruit by HHI. Also, honey is even higher in sugar. If the wild chimp diet is not causing epidemics of cancer, this is evidence that the conclusions drawn by HHI are invalid.

- Finally, all food turns to sugar in the bloodstream. There is nothing particularly sinister about the affect of fruit on blood sugar. Many other foods elevate blood sugar, along with many other bodily conditions.

Conclusion:
HHI proscriptions against fruit are baseless.
HHI conclusions drawn from scientific study above is invalid

I have requested further details from HHI.
This analysis will be modified upon receipt of further qualification from HHI.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2007 01:29AM by fresh.

Sounds crazy to me and yet more info from raw guru's that is wrong!!!

Just like in the raw summit not one talk had any consistancy, everyone is saying different things and each one is convinced that they are right!

So what gives?

Does anyone really know what they are talking about?????

F1

Gosia, thanks for 'getting' what I was trying to say.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. While it's true that there are lots of frugivorous animals (including humans), there are no fruitarians. Fruitarianism is a pseudo-moral pursuit, totally a human invention, which requires those who follow it to disregard their senses and follow an intellectual ideal instead. Why would a person want to call himself a fruitarian and limit himself to only one class of foods even when others might appeal and be perfectly acceptable physiologically? Why not just eat all foods that appeal to the senses and that we know are biologically suitable? That's what the animals do, and it works very well. A squirrel wouldn't go around proclaiming that he's a nutarian, passing up opportunities to eat other appealing foods that are physiologically appropriate (I can't think of anything else that squirrels eat, but there must be something). There are lots of other examples. Each species has a *range* of foods that are appropriate for it.

I'm as close as anyone I know to strict fruitarianism, but the only time I use that term is with cooked food eaters who might assume if I said I eat *mostly* fruit that the rest of what I eat is 'normal' SAD fare. "Oh, thank goodness she eats other things besides fruit", I can just hear them thinking. I don't want anyone mistaking me for somebody who eats fruit with her cereal for breakfast. It is a very, very tough thing to do, learning to eat simply and exclusively of biologically appropriate foods, getting through all those layers of cleansing, not to mention transition struggles, mental counterconditioning, attitude adjustment, etc., etc. I'm proud of my accomplishment and I want others to know about it.

That's why, Fruitarian One, I don't at all begrudge you your handle. Somebody who understands the big picture like you do, and who calls himself "fruitarian" because that's the closest label that describes what he eats after many years of dietary progress is quite different from somebody who talks about the "bad side effects" (see my previous post) she encountered while trying to live up to some contrived ideal called "fruitarianism".

Best wishes,
Nora
www.RawSchool.com

No offense meant (just focusing on facts): Brian Clement's scientific credentials are nil. The quoted study has nothing to do with fruit eating.

Getting the facts straight: the scientific evidence points in the exactly opposite direction. See the quote below as an example.

Naturally, it does not make sense to me to extract compounds from foods. Eating fruit as they are is best! Nevertheless, I attached the quote below for clarification.

Gosia


====================================================
From [www.telegraph.co.uk]
Dark fruit and veg may fight colon cancer cells

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Last Updated: 4:02am BST 20/08/2007

Dark-coloured fruits and vegetables may help to protect against colon cancer, research has shown.

Chokeberries: Dark fruit and veg may fight colon cancer cells
Chokeberries and other dark-coloured fruits are rich in anthocyanin

Scientists found that the chemicals that give foods such as grapes, radishes, purple carrots and bilberries their colour significantly slow the growth of colon cancer cells.

Evidence from experiments on rats and on human colon cancer cells suggests that anthocyanins, the compounds that colour most red, purple and blue fruits and vegetables, slow the growth of the cells by anything from 50 to 80 per cent.

The findings take scientists a step closer to figuring out what gives fruits and vegetables their cancer-fighting properties.

"These foods contain many compounds, and we're just starting to figure out what they are and which ones provide the best health benefits," said Monica Giusti, the lead author and assistant professor of food science at Ohio State University, Columbus, who presented her findings yesterday at the national meeting of the American Chemical Society in Boston.
advertisement
Telegraph - Menswear/Shoes

In studies on human colon cancer cells grown in laboratory dishes, the researchers tested the anti-cancer effects of anthocyanin-rich extracts from fruits and vegetables with deep colours.

Anthocyanin pigments from radishes and black carrots slowed the growth of cancer cells from 50 to 80 per cent.

Pigments from purple corn and chokeberries (almost black berries from shurbs native to North America) not only stopped the growth of cancer cells, but also killed roughly 20 per cent of the cancer cells while having little effect on healthy cells.

This was confirmed by measurements which showed the amount of anthocyanin that was needed to reduce cancer cell growth by half.

Extract derived from purple corn was the most potent, in that it took the least amount of this extract (14 micrograms per millilitre of cell growth solution) to cut cell numbers in half. Chokeberry and bilberry extracts were nearly as potent.

Radish extract proved the least potent, as it took nine times as much to cut cell growth by 50 per cent.

"All fruits and vegetables that are rich in anthocyanins have compounds that can slow down the growth of colon cancer cells in experiments in laboratory dishes and possibly inside the body," Giusti told The Daily Telegraph.

In animal studies, rats induced with colon cancer cells were fed a daily diet of anthocyanin extracts either from bilberries and chokeberries, which are used as flavourings or to make jams and juices.

The anthocyanin extracts reduced signs of colon tumours by 70 and 60 per cent, respectively, when compared with control rats.

Giusti says the results suggest that anthocyanins may protect against certain gastrointestinal cancers.

But she stops short of recommending one kind of fruit or vegetable over another.

"There are more than 600 different anthocyanins found in nature," she said.

"While we know that the concentration of anthocyanins in the gastrointestinal tract is ultimately affected by their chemical structures, we're just beginning to scratch the surface of understanding how the body absorbs and uses these different structures."


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

it may be that people use the word fruitarian as a person who includes veggies and nuts and seeds. there is no commonly accepted definition from what i know.

it is often used interchangeably with frugivorous.

as another example many carnivores/meatarians eat other things besides meat.

it might be good to either avoid labels, or to clearly define what one means when using a label, as it can be confusing and misleading otherwise.

i know its confusing to me when someone uses the word fruitarian, as they are expected by me to eat only fruit, while others take the word to mean mostly fruit.

from wiki:

Fruitarianism is the pursuit of a strict form of vegan diet that is limited to eating the ripe fruits of plants and trees. Fruitarians (frugivores[1] or fructarians) eat in principle only the fruit of plants.[2] As with other dietary practices, such as vegetarianism and raw foodism, some people consider themselves fruitarians even if their diet is not 100% fruit. The reasons for this may be either they simply do not manage to reach this percentage, or that they still are on their way to reach it gradually, or they think or feel that a lower percentage (for instance 75%) is good enough for them. As long as the percentage is higher than 50%, they are (predominantly) fruitarian.[3] Usually fruitarians who include foods other than fruit follow a vegan diet.[4]

On the fruigivorous note:

"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".[8] 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.[9]

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)
[8]http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/44/4/267
[9]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=10378206&dopt=Abstract


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2007 03:51AM by rawgosia.

My 2 cents is that:

I do think fruit can be unwelcome in some diets. There might be illnesses which cause fruit to be at odds with healing. There might be some diets whose digestion, assimilation, whatever, puts the body at odds with fruit.


I never imagined I would say that till lately. I have some chronic health problems and find that every time I eat fruit I react badly to it.


Maybe if I ate mostly fruit and rested, I would turn that around.

The HH diet didn't work for me (over a year). Maybe fruit doesn't work well with the foods in the HH diet.

Although i'm not pro-labeling, I had a suggestion which might help to avoid confusion with dietary choices.

Instead of fruitarianism, or frugivore, or omnivore, the following letters could be used to show what one eats..

F = fruits
V = vegetables
N = nuts
S = seeds
E = eggs
D = dairy
M = meat

in decreasing order of predominance perhaps...

so for example I would be FVNS

why the EDM ? all three are animal products woudlnt it be simpler to just call it A ?

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

and fish

I know lots of people who don't eat meat other than fish and seafood

F = fruits
V = vegetables
N = nuts
S = seeds
A = animal products
G = grains

Hey Raw Nora...are you the Nora I'm thinking of that runs the Raw school?....if so I've heard great things about you, I'd love to meet you one day!

Anyway!

I have never understood the way people get so bent out of shape over the word "Fruitarian" it drives some people crazy and makes people sound so resentful, it's been the cause of so many fights on forums, it makes me wonder what is really making people mad about the word Fruitarian?....is it that people try it and fail therefore they trash it, to me Fruitarian is the same meaning as Frugivore, only it sounds less pretentious so I have always used Fruitarian and in the past I've learnt that people have put a whole bunch of baggage/negativty into the word Fruitarian, so much so that it's developed a whole new meaning/stereo-type that does not represent the true meaning of what a "fruitarian/frugivore" is, maybe that's where the "human invention" bit comes in!!!

For me Fruitarianism is not a human invention because there's Fruitarian animals that have stayed true to their natural eating habits, to me Fruitarianism is a birth right that we have strayed away from and that's my own personal opinion.

I have no hang up at all about describing myself as a "Fruitarian" because it describes my food choices, I'm a "Fruitarian" "Frugivore" simple and plain, I actually think that it's other people that have this Fruitarian interpretation thing all wrong, they think that Fruitarian means limiting your diet to only certain types of food which is not true, we are natural foragers, Fruitarianism is also eating veggies, nuts and seeds of your choice too, I don't do that but that's my personal choice because I only eat what appeals to me, the word "Fruitarian" is just that....a word.

On that note I think I've broken the record for saying Fruitarian in one post!!!!

Be good y'all....

F1





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2007 12:53PM by The Fruitarian One.

The word Fruitarian has always sounded tasty to me I have always prefered fruit to vegetables.


One of the things I find interesting about modern society is the amount of products that either contain fruit or fruit flavors. People are drawn to fruit and don't even realize it.

Look at the amount of fruit flavored drinks and candy. Yet so many people shy away from the real thing.

Phil.

--------------------------------------------------

"Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it" (Chinese Proverb)

Because the real thing is not as concentrated and is bland in comparison.

F1

Processed sugar addiction too.

Phil.

--------------------------------------------------

"Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it" (Chinese Proverb)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2007 03:52PM by jadedshade.

What Clement says isn't contrary to what Nora and F1 said.

If you have a major healing crisis (like a large tumor) do you want to accelerate that crisis?

or do you - as Nora put so eloquently: "find a reasonable balance of foods that please the palate and keep the body busy. " that don't causes conflicts in folks with parasites, digestive disorders, lack of ability to exercise, very toxic/acidic. which slowly bring the body back into balance through a slow manageable detox.

I don't think most of the 'gurus' think fruit is bad or we wern't meant to eat a largely fruit diet, or even a strictly fruit diet. Most are hung up on fruit being 'hybridized' or having 'too much sugar' for one, because they witness in folks who have 'tried' these plans sometimes for many many years. You can rack it up to mindset, or fear, or lack of dedication (and in a sense I agree), but you can't blame folks for trying to protect people from getting in over their head. and for doing what they think and know yields results. (in terms of restoring a level of health, not necc clearing out all internal deposits)

I think some gurus just realize they have a very wide audience, and what may be in fact 'the truth' just might not be true for Joe Frenchfries. Others are just plain stubborn about their paradigm of health, you see this is the pro-fruit (yet not exclusively fruit) camps as well.

everyone seems to have SOME limit to what they are willing to believe/practice. ha!

_____________________



it could be your thoughts...

[www.writerwriterwriter.com]
[www.lulu.com]


short and sweet....and DEEP

_____________________________________________________ ...and FREE

You guys are all so smart and all have your own opinion, cool.

Are there any fruitarians out there who used to have Hypoglycemia?
I'm recently raw vegan (2 weeks). But don't eat sweet fruit because my body reacts to it like sugar.
I think I have mild hypoglycemia symptoms.

I'm attractted to fruitarianism because i do love the taste of sweet fruits.
So if there are any former hypoglycemic fruitarians here, that would give me hope!

Zen

According to Dr D Graham and the 80/10/10 formula the less fat you eat the more fruit you can eat. Many new to raw foods don't find this out right away (I was there) or worse, never find it out and that is most likely why they have problems. Fat interfreres with our bodies natural ability to properly assimilate the sugars from fruit and all kinds of health problems follow from that.

Once I understood this important point and tried it my health went to a much higher level especially when combined with exercise.

My daily goal these days is not to avoid cooked food but to avoid eating too much fat/nuts/avocadoes/oil. And the only way I can do that at this point in my transition is to make sure I get A LOT of my calories from fruit. I love the greens too and have them daily but they don't give me the calories I need.

Dulset

I have no evidence for this, but my intuition says that the fat in avocado does not have the same properties as the processed ones.

Lightform,

Your intuition is correct. The fat in avocados in healthier than processed fats. And healthier than animal fats.

But all fats will affect the body's ability to move oxygen and nutrients to the cells, and the effect starts at over 10% fat. The more fat you eat over 10%, the more the blood is less able to move oxygen and nutrients to the cells. The main nutrient in question is sugar, and in the presence of fat in the blood, the sugar will not be efficiently moved to be consumed the the tissues of the body.

Now processed fats also have this property. And they have the issue of rancidity, which creates free radicals in the fat which sort of act like chemotherapy in your body as you eat refined fats. The free radicals destroy healthy cells in the body.

And animal fats also have the same problem as avocado fat, plus they contain saturated fats, which causes excess cholesterol to form in the blood and body. Eating a plant based saturated fat like coconut oil/butter has the same effect as eating animal fats.

If you cooked your fats or your animal fats, they have all the problems that the raw versions of fat have PLUS they become carcinogenic. This means cancer. Plus in the less oxygenated environment caused by the fats effect on the blood's ability to move oxygen to the cells, cancer cells grow better.