There's lots of fossil evidence showing that humans hunted mammoths, etc..  Think about it--when you're hungry, and your wife and children are starving, and there's 8000+ pounds of meat just waiting for you to herd it over a cliff, you'll do that.  Anybody would.

Think about it...kill 2000 lizards, or one mammoth.  Same amount of meat.  The mammoth is a lot less work, particularly for an entire tribe with 15 or more hunters.  You also get the mammoth all at once. It would take months to find and kill that many small animals.  

Yeah, when I'm starving maybe. The idea that paleo man was often starving or was ever hungry at all while he still lived in Africa is just something imagined by "civilized" man. We know there are lots of other primates in the wild who almost never know hunger, except when their habitat is encroached upon by humans.  

   What about eating the ants along with the honey?

Yes!!! That's what I thought this topic was about (eating ants). Insects are incredibly healthy, great apes eat tons of them all the time. I'm not sure if ants or ant-like creatures are the same as the termites that chimps etc. eat, but I don't see why they would be so different (if there aren't ants there in the first place).

Unfortunately though there is no way I would eat them in the modern world because who knows what types of pesticides, effluent, microorganisms etc. they are picking up. What is all this dust that is around houses doing to them, what about sprays etc. Eating one or two might be fine, eating twenty plus might be incredibly toxic. In fact I've that the housefly is the most dangerous animal to humans in modern times because of the pathogens it has. Obviously, great apes do not get sick and die routinely after eating hundreds of insects, but I'm just musing over why we can't eat them raw as-is.   

Recently I've been wondering about little flies and insects and what human activity must be doing to their life cycle. It must have upset it in so many ways, many must have mutated and evolved along with humans. This could then affect some other life cycle of other bacteria/organisms, even the ones within us. Almost anything can happen when you throw a spanner in the works of an ecological system like humans are doing.  
  

I agree, it's off-topic to bring up the question of whether we should be eating it for health. I don't consume any dairy either, but that's not what the topic is about. Just because I won't be consuming it doesn't mean it doesn't matter or doesn't concern me. I don't consume beetroot right now either, but that doesn't mean I would be okay with it being banned.  

In Ireland they are also trying to ban raw milk, from farmer's markets included. This is a terrible development that denies people their freedom to eat raw. It will also have knock-on effects into the future as more farmers will go into factory farming, loading animals with pharmaceuticals, etc. The traditional and natural ways being done away with which is a tragedy for us all.  

 And why is that?

I just think they're unnatural, not the way you should be getting your nutrition. I don't buy into the idea of it. If it were found that there were some bacteria that I should really be getting and would be getting in much larger quantaties in nature and is known to profoundly impact health, like vitamin c, then I might get them. But I think that's a bit far-fetched.  

You should not expect that your intestines will ever recover fully from taking gluten, especially if you are intolerant to it. Even if it feels fine after a while, irreversible damage may have been caused, just like to your blood sugar and insulin resistance.

As for probiotics, I wouldn't recommend them, and I especially wouldn't recommend overdosing on them.

well I can't comment to my existence but as for credibility on at least the theory and practice of fruitarianism I can say that I was on the vegsource board before the most recent fruitarian bible even came out and was practicing long before many of these neo gurus started.

I've met 5..possibly more people in the flesh that were listed as testimonials or otherwise proponents of the lifestyle in that book.

I was seen by many people as quite a success of such a diet actually..at least for a short time.

I've also read all of Arnold Eherets books and studied personally with many long term vegan rawfoodists..a few of which are quite off the map and some have a variety of 'seeing one part of the elephant' type knowledge which I have found to be somewhat useful.

Sounds good. I am reading a book about DNA by James Watson, who holds extremely contrairian views to mine (and probably the vast majority of people here). It makes me cringe inside, it upsets me. In fact I find Watson to be quite inaccurate at times so it is not very useful for learning new things about it. But I want to understand the enemy. For me Watson and his pro-GM stance is like Hitler. Actually you seem quite reasonable here, but I find your to my mind completely irrational suggestions about fruit, ie. such as the suggestions from your statements that you probably won't die from it, to be what I would call crazy if I believed in using that word.  

I also continued to eat a fair amount of fruit while eating raw animal foods and found that my experience lined up with the theories that both the LC and fruitarian folks were saying, that I could not eat a sufficient amount of animal fat per my healing progress that allowed me also to eat a large amount of carbohydrate from fruit. I also had most of the symptoms of vegan high fruit diets in terms of disposition, physique etc...despite 'feeling good' which is incredibly unreliable when it comes to simple sugars. Days of 0 fruit often remove those clouds.

Uhh.. I have to disagree hugely here. We don't like to eat stones or mud, no, we are attracted to fruit above all. It is NOT unreliable when it comes to natural foods, it is ONLY unreliable when it comes to artificial/processed foods. It is basically 100% reliable otherwise.

At this stage we are at a time that I would call: pre-GM Holocaust. Post GM holocaust hell, we won't be able to trust our instincts on even natural foods. This is what I am trying to mitigate or inhibit the damage of GM as much as possible.  

Despite the claims of yourself and others on the diet about such meeting requirements or not causing other issues with blood and tissue, I had medical issues coming out of the diet that were not there coming in particularly in terms of the very issues of carb sensitivity/fungal stuff which are seen as non issues when doing the diet 'right' or without fats etc...these themselves have taken years to resolve and i'm not alone on this board that has the same experiences.

I have never experienced anything like any of this ever. In fact, part of my motivation for eating as much fruit as possible is not to get into such a horrible state as others are in with these kinds of problems. I have been this way for ~ 4 years or so. I mean, I knew raw was best since before then and had periods of high or almost raw food but they were a bit fleeting and I might even have eaten things like bars again after that.

Much of the research and communication with individuals I've done makes it quite clear that even when cooked foodists (zero carb) or even raw vegans adopt a low sugar diet (including 0 fruit) that their health oft benefits. Now one can argue to some degree against the pitfalls and shortcommings there. It does not say that in the case of zero carb or low sugar vegans that the diet that they choose or works for them to restore health is in fact our natural diet..but I do think it conclusively shows that our natural diet cannot possibly be so highly composed of fruits. People would simply not do well on such approaches (even in periods of months nevermind years or decades) completely lacking something that is so much a part of what we need to thrive and if the requirements for fruit and carbohydrate were as high as some people would believe.

Yet while it is surprising to some that people can survive on all or mostly fruit in a sense this is not all that different than a Pritkin or MacDougal low fat diet but made up of simple instead of complex carbs. I personally would add there is so many obvious other detriments and pluses that factor in here. but suffice to say I think that even for a healthy person Its extremely unlike that are main staple is fruit and certainly that fruit is far less essential in health than other foods..and in particular raw animal based foods. I also think other foods that are somewhat crappy/less natural are also more conducive to health...and the examples for this are all around us...but thats another argument.

The crucial distinction with hygiene as opposed to 'natural eating' is that I do not believe that following such a thing (if it exists) necessarily creates health. sometimes it is not enough and it does not..and more often it likely is a great assumption on how natural the approach is to begin with. Also often enough people neglect various tools which might not be the seemingly more natural options...which on serious investigation really have an assumed presence and no real precedent in real humans.

I agree with you completely here, for example some idiots claim that "herp derp, you're using the internet, that isn't natural lololol"... but communication between animals and even tiny cells is natural.

But just because people make assumptions etc. about how natural something is does not make it a "crap concept" or make it not a useful word/concept. I think it's just about the most useful concept we have!!!
  
For example, I try and sit with my legs up high as much as I can, because this is the natural way of sitting. This is how indigenous populations, and un-Westernized countries such as in the middle-east/india sit, the way all primates and indeed all mammals that do sit sit. Your feet are on the same level with your ass. This almost completely prevents circulation problems, deep vein thrombosis, and in fact many people with these type of problems are medically advised to put their feet up at a higher level.  

Okay, I did not realize that was Jericho Sunfire. Breathanarianism is obvious nonsense that has nothing to do with fruitarianism and he is clearly a liar.

For a reliable and good example, look at this guy: 72 years old bodybuilder and look at what he eats:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO0iKeQJpxQ

Note also that the life expectency for black people is significantly less than for white people, making his age all the more impressive.
  
I sincerely hope that the people here aren't foolish enough to consider the pictures and videos of very low carb RAFers constitute any actual evidence, they are openly 100% selective evidence. The only thing they are strong evidence for is that it's possible for a person to get like that on them, thinking they mean anything else would be crazy beyond belief.  

KD, I find your existence and the beliefs you hold to be a remarkable curiosity.

If you really didn't read about any fruitarian for the past six years, then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and how you could come along then in your next post and act like you're some kind of expert on the subject is just beyond comprehension.

You claim to have "a background in science", and yet you don't know the first thing about how science works, or about evolution, or about what natural means. If you think the people here are going to agree with you that eating naturally is a "crap concept", then you are mistaken. That is what even the most low-carb people on this board say is the best for your health. You're a joke. You are like one of the narrow-minded people in Darwin's time who refused to accept humans were intimately connected with other animals, and you call it "dubious ties". Really, you don't know anything about science. Even mainstream medicine has (generally) agreed for decades that natural environments and food are best if they can be obtained.
    

do you have any documentation (photos and blood work) of these healthy human beings? never seen or read about one myself in 6 years. are you personally able to eat both a high animal fat and high fruit based diet or is this experience of no over symptoms while eating mostly fruits? what standards are these assessments based on?

I've never really tried a high animal fat diet. Things like cod liver oil give me digestion problems sometimes if I take too much of it, though I know cod liver oil isn't completely natural. However I have never experienced any problems with for example raw organic eggs which I really like.  
  
I also have gotten into incredibly low and depressive moods when I didn't have any fruit... I know that you can get used to this after a while but I would rather never experience that state. I used to eat 100% fruit but gave it up due to how incredibly expensive it is and how time-consuming and boring it is to buy fresh fruit every two days or at most three.

Here is a website with a guy and with interviews from people who have been 100% fruitarian for years: http://mangodurian.blogspot.com/ Blood tests can be interpreted in many different ways, the indicators available in blood tests (such as triglycerides being suggestive of heart disease) are for people who are on SAD diets. On a fruitarian diet you don't need to get these blood tests, having said that I'm sure the blood profiles of people with diets very high in fruit are exceptionally good.
 
    

The fructose/glucose thing is all pseudoscience, shown only in a test tube.

Eat whatever fruit you want, as our ancestors did and evolved for.

Hi guys, I've been on this forum before, maybe some people will recognize me from my country. I intend on being productive member of the forum. I wanted to share this amazing news:  

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576468224286877908.html

Somehow, I get the impression that if they started feeding these primates human food they would start losing brain mass as well... as has been seen with how they started getting cardiovascular disease, obesity etc. when eating human food.

Before the researchers and media rush to say that this occurs in humans alone because we're unique, they should perhaps consider the old observation of Darwin that these animals differ to us only: "in degree, and not in kind".

Of COURSE it's the food they were eating!!! How this could be beyond the researchers and they are putting it down to all kinds of bizarre theories including the humans being "very weird" is scarcely believeable to me. I don't even know what they were eating, but before even looking I know almost for a fact that they were eating a raw diet with high fruit or at least a diet that was really healthy and didn't contain human "snacks".  
  
This lends further credence to the compelling theory that in a natural environment that is favourable to the organism, every part of an organism is designed to function optimally until it reaches the Hayflick Limit, ie. death.

Isn't it amazing also how menopause affects only Humans?