Our community would be delighted to know you better. Please tell us more about yourself and what brought you to the Frugivore Diet. Detailed responses will only be accepted (feel free to reapply with more detail if at first not approved as a member).
Doing stuff I love!
Currently planning 4 expeditions!
Cycling around the world
Walking New Zealand
Climbing Mt McKinley
And the 4th to come
www.leehughes.co.uk
What is your gender? PLEASE NOTE: To enhance the community experience, profile pics of yourself are *REQUIRED* to gain membership. Membership will be declined otherwise.
hunk
Please tell us about your dietary inclinations:
eventually
Are you Connected?
No Single
Please list your website/blog/facebook/myspace etc
https://www.leehughes.co.uk
The Frugivore started this site to bring together frugivores across the Globe! Let us know what high fruit assistance do you need?
Movtivation
The Frugivore Diet is a fruit-based vegan internet community which promotes a high carb fruit based vegan lifestyle free of any animal products. Our forum does not tolerate encouragement of anything contrary to this. Nor do we allow endorsement of non-vegan items or practises which involve the imprisonment, exploitation, abuse or murder of sentient beings. We also require our members to post with proper netiquette. Therefore, please indicate your intention:
yes
Comments
Hi,
I wanted to let you know we will have a raw fruit festival in Spain next September
http://festival.811-friendly.net
Maybe you'd like it.
Cheers
That's ok, you only need to reply if you feel compelled to do so, or have something specific to ask or say :o)
Enjoy getting stuck into your dissertation,
Take care
Adam x
I look forward to your reply after reading all my messages.
Take care
Adam x
To be more specific, the radioactive isotopes show not that humans ate meat at some point in history, but at least during a period in history where we lived outside of the rainforests where we originally inhabited.
It does not show however, what % of our diet consisted of meat. Nor does it show for how long. Nor does it show what % of humans did this. Only that a specific human being ate meat. For example, if we look at humans now, fossillised in millenia to come, would it be accurate if we took a sample which ate meat predominately, or which was a lifelong vegan, or a life long frugivore, or which ate a lifelong diet of refined sugars, and said that all humans therefore must have done either one of these?
One of the problems with evaluating our true evolutionary diet, is that since we came from the jungles, it is difficult to find fossils of humans from this place or time. Rainforests are unfortunately not very good at preserving fossil records. So most of the fossils we have to work with, come from when we moved outside of the rainforests. This does not give us an accurate depiction of our full evolutionary history. Only a brief window into our history.
What we know is that when we did move out of the rainforests, there was less fruit and tender leafy greens available. So it is hardly surprising that we start to find records of fossils which ate meat. What these do not illustrate however, is whether or how this practise might have made us human. Nor does it illustrate anything in particular to do with cooking.
Take care
Adam x
The same is true for the rats eating the sweet potato. Starch eaters are more able to digest starch than species which eat simpler carbohydrates. However if they consume a starch which has been effectively pre-digested, then of course, it will be that much easier to digest and absorb the nutrients. Starch is a difficult to digest food full stop, regardless of the capacities of an organisms digestive system.
The question of whether starch or meat then, would be easier to digest as humans in a raw or cooked state is obvious. We have a much poorer ability to digest meat or starch than would a natural consumer of these foods. In fact starch in particular is extremely difficult for us to digest in its raw state. so of course cooking made foods which are difficult to digest naturally, easier to digest. But the question is, are these foods naturally difficult to digest to humans because they are not natural foods for humans to consume. Remember, the purpose of the show was to question whether cooking made us human, not whether cooking makes certain difficult to digest foods more digestible.
This then of course links to the mechanical stomach. I mean seriously, raw potato? Who would be able to digest or even manage to finish one entire raw potato? Of course cooked potato is easier to digest. But all this illustrates is that cooking made it easier for humans to eat a more diverse range of foods (and noteworthy,eat foods which have proven negative consequences compared to raw fruits and greens).
As regards the radioactive isotopes of the teeth,what does this really show?
1) that the body had made a mistake; that the weight lost did not need to be lost, and that the loss in weight wasnt a byproduct of reduced intake of toxic byproducts which needed to be suspended in water. And therefore that the body would not regulate its weight loss once a healthy weight (or homeostasis) had been achieved.
2) that the weight lost was even fat or muscle tissue. The weight could have been water weight, which it most likely was. It could have also been shit. The subjects all significantly increased bowel movements. Because they had been eating so unhealthily and were overweight, it is likely that they had a slow digestive transit time. Over years, this will only mean that they accumulate weight (and waste) in their colon.
3) That the loss in weight was not due to the inadequacy of the specific diet fed to the subjects to meet energy requirements, owing to the amount of energy required to digest the food. Rather than questioning whether a raw diet based on alternative ingredients would be sufficient to meet energy demands.
4) that the standard assumptions of healthy weight are healthy, rather than typical of a SAD eater.
Another example of a flawed experiment was that with the snakes. Firstly, animal experiments are not indicative of human requirements, especially reptiles. Secondly, experiment itself was not fair. by this I mean that digestion is a process that is influenced by a number of factors. It must be induced by hunger (ie. a physiologically determined need for digestion). The snake would have willingly consumed the unprocessed raw meat of its own volition and in its own time, were it hungry. However it had to be forced to consume it. This would not trigger the digestive response in a normal way.
and easy to digest food are available. One of the fundamental principles of nature is conservation of energy. It is too energy expensive to consume foods that are so difficult to digest, such as carrots, which are too high in insoluble fibre and starch, and broccoli, which is too high in insoluble fibre. Broccoli in particular has no natural appeal to human senses in its raw, unprocessed state. It doesnt smell of anything in particular, and doesnt taste of anything in particular, save for a slight sulphury undertone.
Other foods that were included, such as green beans and cabbage were also unlikely to appeal to us. This issue is fundamental to the experiment, since the 2000-2500calorie intake designed by the dietician is meaningless if the foods selected use up too much energy by the body to digest. For there ends up being a net loss in energy.
It is most likely that we, like bonobos, would have most of our food intake come from high calorie fruits, with a secondary intake of tender leafy greens (ie. those which are softest and easiest to digest), hence we would not be eating into the night as the subjects in the experiment were. In fact, we would be asleep before the advent of fire, once dark set in.
Thirdly, the group selected were all overweight and in a poor state of health. This was deliberate since the experiment as mentioned was used on another program for a different purpose; to evaluate whether our natural evolutionary diet of raw fruits and vegetables would reverse health conditions such as hypertension, obesity and high cholesterol levels. The subjects were all picked based on their inability to control these factors dietarily (because they were addicted to junk foods). So when drawing conclusions, such as "the diet was not satisfying", this is inappropriate because the foods would not have satiated blood sugar requirements, and because the subjects were already addicted to foods which over stimulate the nervous system and tastebuds.
Perhaps I should have been more specific, you are right. Gross generalisations are never very accurate or useful. My apologies. Most of the experiments, I felt, were flawed in their design as well as in their conclusions or interpretations of the results. Some of the experiments were flawed only in the conclusions drawn from the results.
The main problem came from the fact that the questions the scientists likely asked when designing the experiments were based on certain assumptions, which influenced the design of the experiments and the questions they asked/assumptions they made when drawing conclusions.
An example is with the experiment with feeding people a raw food diet. The diet they fed people were based presumably on what was being fed the gorillas in captivity. This is firstly not an accurate reflection of what humans might eat, since there is variation amongst all primates in terms of the % of fruits/greens and the specific types of these foods, that are consumed. gorillas consume substantially more leafy greens and vegetable matter than do other species. Bonobos diets would have been a closer approximation to our own. The second problem was that they were being fed foods which are consumed in the UK, where gorillas do not naturally live, and which would neither grow in the African rainforests, nor likely be eaten. the foods are eaten largely by the primates because that is what is available (ie. given to them by their captors). The diets were designed by a dietician, and are based not on whether the foods might have been natural for humans or gorillas to eat, but on what foods the dietician felt would be useful or necessary to include to provide the necessary nutrients.
whether. The foods were fed based on whether they were raw, rather than whether they were natural for humans or gorillas. I find it highly unlikely that a human or gorilla would naturally find, or be attracted to broccoli or carrots, in an environment where more nutritious
I watched that doco with my friend last night. I found it absolutely appalling. One of the clips (the one in the zoo encampment) where they fed people the raw food diet, was part of a BBC doco last year, where it was saying how fantastic it was for weightloss, reducing blood pressure and cholesterol. Every single experiment on the program without exception was flawed. I am so disappointed if that is what our supposed best minds in science are trying to pass off as scientific.
Take care
Adam x
Im familiar with some of the arguments though ive yet to watch the doco. There have been discussions on this forum if you look through the history. I tend to think the most convincing theory Ive come across is that proposed in Lost in the Dark By Graham Gynn and Tony Wright. Have you read that?
Take care
Adam x
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next