Denise Minger on fruit

[balancing-act]

Denise Minger makes, in my opinion, a great case that fruit is totally paleo and we needn't fear sweet.

http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/

[KD]

her actual conclusion (which is not the same as above) should be accurate considering the data provided:

"If you avoid modern fruit on the basis that only “small, bitter, fibrous” fruit was available in the past though, it might be time for a paradigm shift."

with the caveat

"I also believe dietary context and individual health history plays a big role in how people react to nature’s proverbial candy."

The simple fact is when you get wild berries, these are lower indeed lower in sugar than a seedless banana that people will rationalize as 'paleo'. the former does indeed reflect 'the what' and often the quantities people have been eating fruit for 1000s of years wheres tons of sweet fruit does not. Traditional peoples usually lauded for their carb consumption simply do not eat alot of (unprocessed) sweet fruits -nevermind modern hybridized fruits - but she and others are right in that at least for them (or paleo peoples) if they chose to they would have less problems than modern people eating fruits in nature.

Unfortunately this leaves out the major factors, most of the issues for modern people being:

1.)feeding fungus , molds, yeasts and other systemic problems. These being more problematic than even (more toxic) plant foods high in carbs, often not digesting properly (even with people with perfect digestion), creating fermentation and gas which is more dangerous than any 'toxin'.  Any fermentation and (lower) gas from eating food is not normal. any elimination that is quick and/or looks like fruits consumed is not normal.

2.) simply adding too many carbs to prevent primary burning of fatty acids. If one isn't going back to uncounted eras, carbs would normally be used seasonally and resulted in gaining weight. Anecdotaly many people eating raw fruits often can not gainw eight not matter if these are eating far more than any other raw or cooked dieters.  Traditional peoples likely could have easily gained mass on fruits, although not as much as starchy carbs, one reason they were probably eventually preferable.

This is the part that should be highlighted"

Dangerous natural substances. Although most cultivated fruit is pretty safe from a toxicity perspective, wild fruits—especially under-ripe ones—can contain an array of natural toxins causing everything from an upset stomach to death. Alkaloids, tannins, cyanogenic glycoside (which turns into cyanide), and a variety of other compounds can exist in some types of wild fruit, making it imperative to know which parts are safe to eat. These substances can also make some types of wild fruit difficult to eat in large quantities without feeling queasy."

The crux of it is, the types of fruits people eat have either been bread to not have these compounds or they are indeed the ones that are the sweets and highest in everything else she is suggesting. Shes right in it is not prevalent in ALL raw fruit. But then show me someone that CAN get the bulk of their calories from limes, tomatoes, cucumber, gourd, guava, etc...which are all berries that grow in Africa. These things are impossible to get enough food from without having adequate fuel from fats.

[KD]

There is 50 years experience, literature, and tests in raw communities about problems associated with his stuff. People deny it and consistently show the same symptoms: irritibility, poor skin, underweight from poor absorption/fungus/no methods for truly removing internal toxins, and other signs of premature aging, regardless of how few toxins their diet contains.

Paleo people could indeed have eaten almost entirely fruit at some point and that wouldn't change these 'facts'. Doesn't help that known people actually do better in nature on fats (animals, or even fatty fruits/nuts) or cooked starchy foods.

I don't know why people choose to believe there is some conspiracy (divorced of personal and empirical/scientific experience) with bashing something which is so incredibly effortless as a food source and lifestyle - at first OR when ignoring symptoms. Eating large amounts of fruit is fun and easier to get a hold of and at the same time generally nothing to do with anything but addictions and feeding fungus and bacteria non-conducive to health.  Regardless of the debates on carbs or fats, eating a healthy diet should pose no desire for sweet foods, which is a proven fact at this point. Doesn't say which is healthy or what amounts of sweet foods are right for omnivores, just important to acknowledge that as a base.

[balancing-act]

I lost you a bit, KD, and I'd like to hear you. What do you mean by this line?: "There is 50 years experience, literature, and tests in raw communities about problems associated with his stuff."
Associated with what? You mean a very high fruit diet?

Also, what does this clause mean?: "eating a healthy diet should pose no desire for sweet foods."
I just don't follow that.

Thanks.

[achillezzz]

Too much fruits withot adequate fat protein will make you catabolic over time your jaw will begin to deformate and you will soon start to "detox" your teeth for some reason..

[goodsamaritan]

I think the anti-fruit hysteria needs to tone down.

Fruit eaters are not promoting a high fruit diet.  (only the fruitarian and vegan idiots do that.)

I live in a country where fruits are abundant and every month there is a new fruit in season.  So the wise healers advise us:

- eat what fruit is in season
- those fruits in season have the most abundant nutrients at that time.
- FOLLOW THE FRUIT SEASONS.

I live in the Philippines.  So your mileage will vary where you live.

[zeno]

I don't think KD is bashing on fruit as much as he is clarifying the point of Denise Minger, which balancing-act does a poor jog of doing (please do not take any personal offense).

In the Philippines it may make sense to enjoy the delicious small saba (banana) because: (1) it hasn't changed much since there are still wild strains intact and available; (2) GS is a direct descendant of the people who ate these bananas historically; (3) GS eats them seasonally and with moderation; (4) and GS is capable to digest them well because he has overcome fungal issues.

Thank you for your post, KD. I found it particularly clear and informative. It nicely sums up the caution one should practice when eating fruit (especially the hybridized fruits of today).

Also, what does this clause mean?: "eating a healthy diet should pose no desire for sweet foods."

I believe KD meant that fruits such as Granny Smith apples didn't exist in the past, so it doesn't make much sense for our bodies to need whatever that fruit provides because it didn't evolve naturally--it was genetically hybridized by man and in most cases such fruits are selected and produced for their sweet flavor. Thus, when eating mindfully, it is simple to realize (both logically and intuitively) that such foods aren't necessary, for they shouldn't be in existence in all sincerity. They weren't created by the design of nature. This diet and this lifestyle advocate the re-connection with the natural environment and what is has to offer so that we may reap the benefits and correct the damage wrought by unnatural elements that poison our environments and our bodies.

KD will have to clarify, of course. I just felt like offering my interpretation.

[KD]

My argument generally is that its disingenuous to say that unrestricted eating of  'paleo' foods is an unequivocal idea that creates health. I agree that DM's arguments (as usual!) are correct in the sense that the opposing arguments neglect many real facts and neglect the possibility that some (already healthy) people might do ok on tons of ripe wild fruit. I would still say other approaches would be better, but that is entirely debatable.

To put in personal terms,
5, 4, 3, 2, 1 years ago I certainly wouldn't be eating healthfully even what  could feasibly be considered a typical Cordian-esq 'paleo' amount of fruit, nor the amount of fruit eaten by KNOWN HGs. These HGs lived in healthy environments that had access to excellent quality wild fruits that arguably had less stuff to 'manage' than myself as a modern person raised on modern food. Still these people did not eat tons of sweet fruit in MOST cases.  I do believe alot of people recommend far more fruit than is known on record to have been consumed and also neglect the actual effects on their life and health -- in contrast even to people supposedly doing all the wrong things. Thats my opinion and observation.

I personally see a healing approach as better than finding a accurate balance of paleo foods eaten by our ancestors. Thankfully because my lifestyle has been workable (IMO) at this point, sure I could likely get away with eating more fruit now than before. If I chose to eat a more carb-centered diet without any other changes in my life I would likely eat around 3-5 pieces of fruit, and eat a variety of other sugars (honey, possibly milk) and starches as to what I believe to be an optimal carb-based diet.  I wouldn't do that now regularly as my current research deems that incompatible with my current diet... so this would mean far less fat and probably less protein with the added carbs and I (currently) choose to stick with this. If I lived in the tropics and had access to wild ripe fruit there, I likely wouldn't restrict fruits as much as above but would not make fruit the bulk of my diet even on a mostly carb diet. Theres plenty of sources on why --barring fructose argument -- starches are a better supply of glucose for humans as well as avoid many problems of even quality and ripe fruits for many people.

IMO Denise's article is well researched as usual and not 'wrong' but its only because the conventional paleo world doesn't really have the knowledge to articulate what these problems are. The conventional paleo community she is rebutting can only point to these other things, which I do think in-fact are issues for human health but probably not issues that damn fruits as being destructive to our ancestors in the ways they imply.   DMs article is good in that it points out how these people are really shooting themselves in the face - because fruit eaters do not get fat eating fruits and quite the opposite that eating tons of calories of fruit generally is hard to build healthy tissue due to complex issues like some mentioned above.  No one knows 100%.

[TylerDurden]

Hmm,  clearly nominative determinism does not apply here, re DM. 

[KD]

Also, what does this clause mean?: "eating a healthy diet should pose no desire for sweet foods."
I just don't follow that.

Thanks.

Basically theres  an assumption that all humans crave sweet foods as a default. We know biochemically that there is no real need for sweet foods or 'carbs' in humans but suggesting such is the same as any other theory that doesn't always come across as workable in reality. A fair-er argument is It comes down to something to do with what you are already used to eating and used to processing as fuel. Basically alot of desire for foods seems to be bacterial/fungal related rather than true bodily needs.

Not craving sweet on a diet that deprives that bacteria/fungus over time is the same reason that after awhile one doesn't crave SWD foods on a healthy diet. Not saying those are the same though, but one should be able to enjoy sweet foods and eat a variety of foods for their nutrients without excessively being driven to eat them. i.e. a normal person just buying a tangerine or something and going about their day. Not needing to gorge on foods, able to move on after a small amount to some other activity is a pretty necessary test for addictions over needs IMO.  I should have phrased my original statement more as 'craving' and extreme end of 'desire' which is not the same as wanting something as a small treat or as a real nutritional need.

In a nutshell, people that eat alot of sweet foods should be able to subsist comfortably (expending lots of energy) on fats or bodyfat for periods at a time without sweet foods..corresponding with the needs in nature. This is very rarely the case as burning fats comfortably and depriving those bacterias/fungus is something that needs to be re-worked on an individual level over time.

[balancing-act]

Well, thanks, KD, I appreciate your thoughts and sharing your experience.

I'm still a little fuzzy on how I mis-summarized DM's article. I just re-read it. I am personally certainly *not* advocating a crazy mostly-fruit diet. Like many here, I did that for a few months, and it was a disaster. I've also tried living pretty much without fruit, however, for long periods, and that was perhaps equally disastrous. As it happens I *only* eat tropical fruit; that's just what my body goes for. OK, maybe persimmons are borderline, and melons an occasional exception, but your typical apples and oranges and pears and plums and what not in the market react to me as entirely different food group, which I find fascinating and which aligns with DM's piece. I've always assumed that it's because tropical fruits are less tampered with genetically- but, whatever the reason, I don't eat standard supermarket fruit.

I'm very interested in the long-term experiences of folks here who don't have a strong anti-fruit bias in terms of how your needs/desires have changes. Because KD writes: "Basically alot of desire for foods seems to be bacterial/fungal related rather than true bodily needs."
Perhaps so. And I'd like to learn to tell the difference and hone my body in more delicately. Just in the last several weeks I've been eating more vegetables than ever before- I never took to them before I started going paleo- so I'm interested in how that may affect my fruit consumption in the long run. It'll lower it, I imagine. However, it's very, very clear to me when I'm devouring a ripe jackfruit and it's the most heavenly thing in the world, and it hydrates as well as nourishes me, and my stomach gurgles with happiness-- that this is something very natural that I should certainly be doing.

I'm pretty clueless as to what is meant by: "We know biochemically that there is no real need for sweet foods or 'carbs' in humans"
...no need for carbs at all? Why is "carbs" in quotes? We're supposed to live entirely off of fat and protein? I know some folks here do that, but... Then how come I don't crave meat all the time? How come  sometimes more fat and protein just make me feel heavy and lethargic, while fruit tastes spectacular and makes me feel light and happy? Not to mention it's the perfect hydration source. I've noticed drinking water makes me feel bloating, but eating juicy tropical fruit makes me feel impeccably hydrated, which is certainly central to good health.
I don't know, I'm new to these scientific arguments, but the whole thing just makes me want to share my ripe jackfruit. May I offer some persimmons? They took a fucking month to ripen. I'm always sharing my tropical fruit with friends and family and bringing it to meetings and stuff, and I have never once- not once- found a person who doesn't go crazy for it. Doesn't that tell you something? OK, except durian- that's a wild card.

[goodsamaritan]

I'm very interested in the long-term experiences of folks here who don't have a strong anti-fruit bias in terms of how your needs/desires have changes. Because KD writes: "Basically alot of desire for foods seems to be bacterial/fungal related rather than true bodily needs."

I have personally experienced this and have personally observed this in the people I help heal from diseases.

Examples:

1. Myself - I used to crave chocolates.  Not that much.  But I would go out of my way every 1 to 2 weeks and drive to a grocery and buy a chocolate bar, just 1 chocolate bar.

When I got candida due to extreme stress, I did a 3 day VCO detox.  I found myself getting rid of chocolate cravings and liking for it.  Even if people offer me chocolate for free under my nose.

2. My brother - Used to be an ice cream addict.  Almost died of psoriasis and the MD treatments.  He did 4 sets of 3 day vco detoxes and got rid of his ice cream addiction.

3.  There was another woman, I forgot, she was a true chocolate addict who needed help and I asked her to do a vco detox, and yes of course it worked.

I go on to eat tropical fruits because they are my primary source of hydration.  I stick to hydrating ones, nutritious ones and just taste other sweet ones every now and then when they are in season.

Staple fruit for me are:
- papayas
- coconuts
- wish durian was available year round.
- calamansi and lemon to make juice with water or make ceviche

I on purpose do not make bananas staples because their carbs cause me to be hypoglycemic.  I do taste them once in a while, but never indulge.

Pineapples are a mere digestive aid for those who eat cooked food, a bite or two is enough, they are too sweet.

Many other fruits are eaten just once in a while and in small amounts because they are just too sweet.  For example, 1 chico is enough for a day, or 1/2 of a mango was enough for a day.  Jackfruit you only eat a handful.

Rambutan I berate my wife and kids as they are too sweet and they eat too much of it when in season.  Lucky that season is short.

Guavas are medicinal but you can't eat a lot of it and you can't force yourself to.  But one or two small guavas each morning plus a raw egg can start turning your white hair to black again if you do it for a month.

Non sweet fruit such as cucumbers are eaten by my kids who are on cooked paleo diet.  And cucumbers can be used as a base for juices in juicers.

[balancing-act]

Thanks for your thoughts, GS. I'm still not totally clear on how we know whether a desire for a sweet fruit comes from a true bodily desire versus a crying fungus. Your examples of chocolate and ice cream are different, because caffeine (theobromine) and sugar are addictive drugs in themselves.

I'm with you on hydrating fruit being the best. I don't drink water, and I'm impeccably hydrated from eating lots of fruit. It's clear to me to this hydration is central to health, and that the water is fresh fruit is the highest-quality water. A couple persimmons yesterday made me feel amazing. I hear you on bananas or, the one I'm sometimes drawn to, fresh dates- probably OK for occasional consumption, but not more than that.

I am happy to find very recently that I can really enjoy vegetables if I do it right (drench them in fat), and this can replace some of the fruit I was eating. Cause my body doesn't react well to real high protein, at least, not as a regular thing.

I also think that if you live somewhere with distinct seasons, like the northeast U.S. here, our needs and desire for sweet fruit versus fat and protein varies very significantly.

[zeno]

I am happy to find very recently that I can really enjoy vegetables if I do it right (drench them in fat), and this can replace some of the fruit I was eating. Cause my body doesn't react well to real high protein, at least, not as a regular thing.

By high protein do you mean a large amount? If so, what do you eat on a daily/regular basis?

[balancing-act]

I don't know, Zeno, I'm totally just figuring it out. I've had a weird path of extremes, from high fat raw mostly vegan to fruitarian to eating tons of cooked meat, to cutting out meat and eating dairy, to cutting out dairy and eating (raw) meat again, and now trying to find balance between fruit, veggies, fats, and meat.
Earlier this fall I had this overwhelming urge for lots of meat and in about a two-week period I ate 15 pounds of farm pork and probably almost 10 pounds of beef/lamb. Since then I've only craved meat here and there. When I got into the raw meat just a little over a month ago I was eating quite a bit every day for the novelty of it, but then my body started rejecting it, and I've been eating mostly fruit and veggies and coconut since, and some dairy, but I've cut that out for good. I assume without the dairy I'll start craving meat again, but I've never been a meat-at-every-meal type, and when I've tried that I don't feel light and happy at all.
So I don't really know, but I'm thinking less than once a day on meat for me, or maybe once a day or so over the winter, but I'm really not sure. I just picked up some lamb shanks and pork as well as some back fat from a local farm, so I'm supplied.... But my favorite meal atm is raw veggie coconut curry stew.

How much meat do you think is ideal? How much do you eat?

By high protein I guess I meant eating meat (including fish) multiple times a day every day.

[goodsamaritan]

Thanks for your thoughts, GS. I'm still not totally clear on how we know whether a desire for a sweet fruit comes from a true bodily desire versus a crying fungus. Your examples of chocolate and ice cream are different, because caffeine (theobromine) and sugar are addictive drugs in themselves.

Come to think of it. In my SAD days and pre VCO detox days I used to be able to eat some 3 ripe mangoes a day.  But now there is absolutely no desire.  Just a whole mango is more than enough.  Maybe it is also the shift to a high fat low carb diet.

[KD]

I don't see anything wrong with eating jakfruit and persimmons - I would eat the ass out of these things on a special occasion. I would disagree with your conclusions about what-makes-what natural and could argue further on that, but to each his own. My argument is generally against this idea that these 'issues' don't exists because of these same kind of assumptions of what people could have done instead of what kinds of things actually  occur, so that is where I am coming from. Its not just my experiences or whatever people would want to paint them but what I see as alot of dishonesty generally about peoples actual results, what we know currently about anthropology, what we have as a 'history' of raw food, and all the actual physical human sciences.

In terms of nutrition my views often correspond alot with GS actually. Regardless of our species origin, where you live and how the fruit was picked are not myths or minor factors with fruits, as with genetic inheritance and even perhaps race. Then comes all the other factors/interactions with modern people that might not make even the appropriate 'genetic' diet (if that was the case) work.

I think the article is specific and not really a validation of anything other than sweet fruit and high fructose fruit (that isn't super fibrous/unpalatable - as some say) existing in nature independent of modern breeding. It doesn't say much other than that IMO. In many places humans have lived (and arguably thrived) where wild fruit are indeed small, low sugar, low fructose and/or fibrous and 'less sweet'. These also were likely picked clean by birds and other animals to get 1000s of cal in quantity on a daily basis. Even many gurus have admitted to melons and such being far less sweet in nature to the point of in-edibility. The fact that there were always sweet edible fruit available to humans in certain parts of the world doesn't particularly seem of extreme relevance to me. Some of these fruits have massive seeds and seem only coincidentally edible to humans as carriers for these foods as opposed to say: berries. I do think the fructose thing and other things factor in, and even believe perhaps a more extreme idea that diets of modern fruits actually can be poorer than eating conventional or modern fructose sources. However, if traditional peoples in tropical zones were actually eating tons of this fruit or if modern peoples were doing tremendously well doing so I wouldn't have as much of an argument. I would still point out that chimps convert their high fruit diet at a level of 65% fatty acids while humans will convert the same amount to 10%.

I was trying to not imply people should eat only fat and protein. I tried to make it clear that the "carbs" thing could indeed be a BS factoid not useful for anyone restoring their health or thriving as a human being, but it does indeed counter the idea that these foods are needed for basic metabolic functioning. Anyone who says these are natural or defaults just don't understand physiology and essentially deny other's experience both past and present. Its fine to argue what is the best for thriving but this is entirely different than suggesting what humans innately do or need. What the best system for thriving is up to the individual person.

[balancing-act]

Mm, thanks, KD- appreciate your perspective. I'm still in an indecisive spot personally, trying to take the theoretical to the personal and figure out how much tropical fruit I want to still be eating and how much is psychological addiction, esp. now with the winter almost upon us... but it's food for thought, thx.