Bananas

[PaleoPhil]

Originally posted at http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/welcoming-commitee/unavailable-grass-fed-meat/msg21512/#msg21512:
Well, the odd thing to me is how we always utilize science and measurements when deciding whether something is harmful or not. It doesn't feel intuitive to look into the amount of sugar (with no mention of what kind of sugar) and conclude that it has to be harmful. Does eating 15 bananas in a day have a harmful effect on blood sugar? Does it causes energy highs and lows? Is it bad for you in combination with high fat intake or simply in and of itself? Right now all I get is contradictions depending on which camp you ask the questions to. That Steve Pavlina guy was testing his blood sugar throughout the 30 day vegan diet and it all played out normal. ....

One thing you could do, if you don't mind the expense, is buy a glucose meter (most come with a sample of test strips) and do some of your own blood sugar testing, instead of relying solely on Pavlina's example.

I had done a fair amount of research on bananas, because I was surprised to find out recently that they were inedible during the Stone Age, and that got me investigating. Your questions got me doing some additional research. Here are some of my findings:

"Wild bananas are native to SE Asia, and produce inedible fruit with numerous seeds but little pulp" and bananas made edible by domestication were not eaten by Westerners until the 15th and 16th centuries when "Portuguese colonists started banana plantations in the Atlantic Islands, Brazil, and western Africa" (sources: "Banana - Trade, Cultivation, Pests and diseases, Effects of banana diseases in East Africa, Fibre, Popular culture," http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/2306/banana.html and "Wild Bananas," La Gringa's Blogicito, Tuesday, November 14, 2006, http://lagringasblogicito.blogspot.com/2006/11/wild-bananas.html). Until the 19th century, even domesticated cultivars of bananas had to be cooked to be made edible:

"The yellow sweet banana is a mutant strain of the cooking banana, discovered in 1836 by Jamaican Jean Francois Poujot, who found one of the banana trees on his plantation was bearing yellow fruit rather than green or red. Upon tasting the new discovery, he found it to be sweet in its raw state, without the need for cooking" ("Banana History: Cultivation of bananas pre-dates that of rice," Peggy Trowbridge Filippone, http://homecooking.about.com/od/foodhistory/a/bananahistory.htm).

Americans did not start eating large quantities of bananas until fruit conglomerates like United Fruit Company began shipping large quantities in the late nineteenth century ("United Fruit Company," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company#Early_history). United Fruit is now Chiquita, which continues United Fruit's practice of monoculture agriculture of a single cultivar (the Cavendish yellow banana), made possible by heavy chemical use, that eventually led to the demise of the earlier Gros Michael variety and which is predicted to end with the demise of the Cavendish within the next 10-20 years ("Bananas Are Dying, Killed by Corporate Monoculture," Heidi Stevenson, 2 June 2008, http://www.naturalnews.com/023339_banana_bananas_disease.html and "Banana," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana). So even if you are young and love yellow Cavendish bananas and think they are healthy, you will likely not be eating them 20 years from now and 30BananasADay.com has a limited future (unless there is a switch in focus to other varieties than the Cavendish bananas in the site logo).

Most of the bananas that grow wild in SE Asia today are apparently descendents of past domesticated cultivars. For example, many wild bananas grow in the Philippines, but they are not native to that nation. Since wild bananas are inedible, the earliest uses might have been the uses that wild bananas are put to today: using the seeds to make necklaces, the leaves for roofing materials, umbrellas and plates, the flowers for decoration, and the starch to brew alcoholic beverages (The Encyclopedia of Fruit & Nuts, by Jules Janick, Robert E. Paull, p. 514). It's my guess that that latter use is what spurred the first spreading by humans of wild bananas beyond their native land of New Guinea.

I do not know a single scientist who thinks that the few centuries that Europeans have been eating bananas, or the less than two centuries that Americans have been eating them is enough time to adapt biologically to a food. So the question is, are bananas similar enough to other fruits that we could be biologically pre-adapted to eat them without long-term harm, despite most of the world not having consumed them regularly until the 19th century? I don't know.

I do know that despite bananas containing loads of potassium I continued to get potassium-deficiency cramps while I was eating plenty of them, whereas the cramps rapidly declined when I cut out carbs and started eating raw red meats regularly (and only return if I go too long without eating raw red meat)--despite the fact that red meat contains lower levels of potassium. So either the potassium in red meat is more bioavailable to me than that in bananas, or the carbs in any food, like bananas, reduce the bioavailability to me of nutrients like potassium, or both. So for me bananas are not a prime food choice for at least three reasons. As always, YMMV.

Another interesting piece of evidence regarding diets heavy in fruits like bananas is the fact that the 30bananasaday and other raw vegan forums seem to be filled with complaints of poor health, cravings and detoxes, whereas this forum seems to have more reports of health benefits than health complaints (though we do have some of the latter). Yet when people like you report at a raw vegan forum having problems with a raw vegan diet, they tend to get dismissed or excuses made. Have you noticed this when comparing 30bananasaday to this RPD forum?

[whitebox84]

Yet when people like you report at a raw vegan forum having problems with a raw vegan diet, they tend to get dismissed or excuses made. Have you noticed this when comparing 30bananasaday to this RPD forum?

Yes.  

Though there are plenty of insightful dudes at 30BAD. That can't be ignored. What bothers me is how emaciated the men are.

And I'm not sure what it is yet, but there's something not right in this camp as well. There are some questionable characters and I need to study you guys a bit more, like an anthropologist does with a tribe. Not to say the RawZis, PaleoPhils and Tylers of the group aren't swell chaps, though Tyler's quote on freedom to bear arms strikes me as a bit odd. I wondered during the first couple of weeks whether the high meat consumption causes aggressive qualities to be heightened among this group. Or rather, whether the qualities of empathy are higher at 30BAD than they are here. It's an interesting topic in my head on whether "you are what you eat" affects our psychological balance in very specific ways depending on the nature of the food groups we digest regularly as dietary staples.

My apologizes for deviating the topic off bananas!

[TylerDurden]

Not to say the RawZis, PaleoPhils and Tylers of the group aren't swell chaps, though Tyler's quote on freedom to bear arms strikes me as a bit odd

There's nothing odd about it at all. A little background checking would reveal  to you that I live in a country which is notorious for its harsh gun-control laws(so much so that even training for shooting in the Olympics has become a major problem); plus I've heard of many instances in the US(and other countries) where citizens have benefitted in innumerable ways from gun-ownership , so it's natural that I should want to have a quotation relevant to that issue - also, of more importance to me, it refers to 1 of the more fascinating science fiction books/authors of the golden age of SF, which makes it all the more memorable as a quotation.*Also, for those who haven't read the relevant book, that particular slogan/quotation isn't solely about gun-rights it's about the larger picture of warning citizens to make sure that their government doesn't remove their rights by stealth/excessive legislation/force of arms  etc.*
At any rate, it's rather common for people to use quotations (in one's signature)of rather controversial nature from fields not directly related to the forum's main focus of interest(and it's boring for people like me, anyway, to constantly  refer only to quotations that are solely health- or diet-related as I've been doing in the past). So I'm puzzled why you should take issue with it(unless you're some fanatical anti-gun campaigner, in which case, any  discussion of such issues are best kept to some other more relevant forum; hhhmm, although a good case could be  made that rawpalaeodieters are much more likely to be anti-gun-control/pro-gun-ownership given the interest in hunting by many RVAFers. Perhaps I should post a poll, at some stage, in the off-topics forum,  out of curiosity.
 

I wondered during the first couple of weeks whether the high meat consumption causes aggressive qualities to be heightened among this group.

If you'd  tried "high-meat" for any length of time or checked the reports of people re "high-meat" on the various other RVAF forums, you might have noticed that reports of aggression aren't mentioned:- instead there are reports of increased concentration/alertness, improvement in mood due to the effect of bacteria, reduction in panic attacks and the like(the improvement in mood, incidentally, being backed by a particular study). Improvements in mood aren't likely to lead to aggression, IMO.

Or rather, whether the qualities of empathy are higher at 30BAD than they are here. It's an interesting topic in my head on whether "you are what you eat" affects our psychological balance in very specific ways depending on the nature of the food groups we digest regularly as dietary staples.

That idea that one's diet directly reflects one's temperament is one of the more absurd notions invented by vegans. There is some vague evidence  that eating diets heavy in plant-food reduces the sex-drive but this doesn't necessarily reflect a change in personality as such:-

http://www.rense.com/politics6/vegsex.htm

, but the notions vegans have that, because red-meat is associated with hunters violently killing animals, and that therefore red-meat-eaters are violent, has absolutely no basis in fact. I suppose there is also a ridiculous modern notion of "raw-meat-eaters" being more savage/less civilised, but this is all pure prejudice.

To cut a long story short, I've known many people from following widely different diets and their temperament was just as varied as those on any other diet. I know that a few RVAFers have accused vegans of being hyper-aggressive, but, similiarly, there just isn't any such evidence as humans are influenced as much by genetic/environment/culture  aspects as any other factor.

[RawZi]

Not to say the RawZis, PaleoPhils and Tylers of the group aren't swell chaps, though Tyler's quote on freedom to bear arms strikes me as a bit odd. I wondered during the first couple of weeks whether the high meat consumption causes aggressive qualities to be heightened among this group. Or rather, whether the qualities of empathy are higher at 30BAD than they are here ...

My apologizes for deviating the topic off bananas!

    I always see one thing reflecting on another in so many ways, always have, all my life, ever as a small child.  The 30BaDers take care of their systemic candidiasis' by feeding the yeast and making the yeast happy.  That's fungus.  Fungus is interlaced from tree to tree all through forests.  Fungus is an amazing being.  It's like the Star Trek Borg or bees in a hive, less individuality type freedom.

    Were people possibly aggressive toward you, you coming from 30BaD?  I might understand that, as 30BaDers (not all but many) have been very harsh, crooked and unnecessarily cruel to raw meat eaters in my experience.  Maybe one could need to get known in a different way.

    Do I come across to you as un-empathetic or aggressive?  I'm not sure I understand what you wrote.  I know eating (raw) white meat and occasionally eating aajonus' recipe for the high meat assists me in being totally calm in mind, action etc.  Unfortunately I eat (raw) red meat too, which doesn't seem to suit me well in my opinion, and when I at times cheat by eating Vegan food too, which gets me feeling like a mess and looking like one too, IMO but also swelling which cannot be argued.  If you do think I am un-empathetic, you might think different if you met me.  Animals approach me every chance, more positively than to almost anyone I've ever met in person around animals.  I think animals can sense I "hear" them very well (as in understanding them on some special level that they appreciate).  Or maybe there's a natural hunter in me waiting to get out.  The attraction of animals to me might be part of how I would catch them for eating when I eventually choose to catch my food.  I don't know.  I have never felt like killing or injuring one or any.

    I'm sorry if that was too aggressive.  Nuances or lack thereof in voice, breathing and almost everything can get lost in written word, especially from someone like me who almost always tended to have writer's block and can have very expressive voice facial expressions and even body language, etc in person.  Pitch (voice highs lows) also might affect communication in person.

    On the topic of bananas; I've never been overly fond of them, unless there are a multitude of yard grown ones each time to pick from, untreated.

[PaleoPhil]

Yes.  

Though there are plenty of insightful dudes at 30BAD. That can't be ignored. What bothers me is how emaciated the men are.

I have noticed that men seem to fare worse on avg on raw and cooked vegan/vegetarian diets than females. I wonder if the division of labor between women gathering plant foods and small critters and men hunting large game has resulted in any small differences in tolerances of plant foods, though there are females who do well on ZC and males who do well on plant-heavy diets.

And I'm not sure what it is yet, but there's something not right in this camp as well. There are some questionable characters and I need to study you guys a bit more, like an anthropologist does with a tribe.

Heh, heh, touche. I love anthropology, so I can relate to that.  

... It's an interesting topic in my head on whether "you are what you eat" affects our psychological balance in very specific ways depending on the nature of the food groups we digest regularly as dietary staples. ....

I've wondered about that too, though I see the qualities that seem to be represented a bit more among heavy meat eaters like the Inuit, Nenets, Kets, Lakota, ZCers, etc. as more positive than you apparently do. If there's anything to it, I suppose it would come down to whether you would like to be more like the meat-eating wolf or tarsier vs. the plant-eating giant panda or spider monkey.

Rather than get much into characterizing others, I'll describe my own changes. I've found a raw carnivorous diet to be very calming and inducing of feelings of well-being and happiness. I am less easily startled, calmer, less cranky, more positive, have less brain fog, less daydreaming, more energy, etc.

My own approach is to not reject the meat-eating aspect of humanity and try to override nature by eating a diet I deem more peace-inducing. I figure I'm not smarter than nature (or Nature's God, depending on your view).

[Michael]

I wondered during the first couple of weeks whether the high meat consumption causes aggressive qualities to be heightened among this group. Or rather, whether the qualities of empathy are higher at 30BAD than they are here. It's an interesting topic in my head on whether "you are what you eat" affects our psychological balance in very specific ways depending on the nature of the food groups we digest regularly as dietary staples.

I must confess, Whitebox84, that I have also noticed seemingly aggressive behaviour in some of the posts that go on in this forum with people here present and past.  But, I have noticed it on a much more extensive scale from my previous vegetarian days and on vegetarian/vegan/fruitarian forums and people I've known.  My own experience informs me that much of the aggressive behaviour is a result of sugar and/or insulin/hormone inbalance which, of course, is far more prevalent with the latter groups.  I've witnessed this in my own behaviour also which was far less calm & rational pre-RPD and can reiterate similar personal changes to PaleoPhil.

That idea that one's diet directly reflects one's temperament is one of the more absurd notions invented by vegans.

My personal experience informs me differently.  Of course, baseline temperament is fundamental but I genuinely believe one's diet is also a critical factor.  With it's medically noted influence upon the body's biochemistry how could this not be so?

[PaleoPhil]

Coincidentally, a friend just informed me of a new term in Japan: "herbivore men" that aligns with societal stereotypes about herbivores and carnivores that are exaggerated but do seem to have some basis in reality among both humans and other animals.


Japan's 'herbivore men' -- less interested in sex, money
By Morgan Neill
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/06/05/japan.herbivore.men/index.html

..."In Japan, sex is translated as 'relationship in flesh,'" she said, "so I named those boys 'herbivorous boys' since they are not interested in flesh."

...Midori Saida, a 24-year-old woman ... said "herbivore men" were "flaky and weak."

....Fukasawa said Japanese men from the baby boomer generation were typically aggressive and proactive when it came to romance and sex. But as a result of growing up during Japan's troubled economy in the 1990s, their children's generation was not as assertive and goal-oriented. ....

Older generations of Japanese men are not happy about the changes. At a bar frequented by businessmen after work, one man said: "You need to be carnivorous when you make decisions in your life. You should be proactive, not passive." ....


My unscientific experience has been that carnivorous/hunting-oriented men tend a bit more than avg toward an aggressive, gruff, strong, confident, initial exterior, but with incredible friendliness and loyalty underneath, whereas there is a bit of a tendency toward passive aggressive behaviors among heavy plant eaters and certain prey-type behaviors like easy startling. This is not always the case, however, I don't know of any studies on it, I judge based on the individual (not the stereotypes), and I am open minded on the subject, but I do think that Whitebox and Michael's posts are generally on target about this.

[van]

I experienced an aggressive/agitated state when I first started eating raw meat.  Firmly believe in the principle that raw proteins are highly aggressive cleansers and that the aggressive state is mostly toxins or cooked damaged proteins being exchanged in the body with raw proteins.   This may sound a little naive, but I have experienced it with raw fish.    It passes.        Also there is something to be said about when the body becomes healthy, it wants to express itself in all the ways it couldn't while held down with disease.    This also passes and normalizes.

[RawZi]

   WhiteBox74 asked me to pass on the quote below, onto the banana thread:

I find everyone's posts fascinating and will get back to it once my ban is over next season.

   I'm glad I made my email address available. This is the only message.  I don't think he'll give me another to pass to you, and I won't even if.

[TylerDurden]

My personal experience informs me differently.  Of course, baseline temperament is fundamental but I genuinely believe one's diet is also a critical factor.  With it's medically noted influence upon the body's biochemistry how could this not be so?

There is a very big difference between mere changes in levels of hormones and peoples' basic personality as derived from culture/enviornment/genes. I think it is highly misleading (and somewhat biased) to suggest that 1 group is more aggressive than another. Also, granted vegans can become aggressive towards non-vegans but that is purely a philosophical disagreement based on views of animal rights(I'm sure that extreme  socialists and extreme conservatives feel much the same way about each other, regardless of diet).

At any rate, there are also biases against our way of life(eg:- the notion that raw-meat-eating implies increased  savagery/aggressiveness and from my own experiences of vegans and RVAFers, I have found that such claims are inherently bogus, when viewing the whole communities as a whole.

[PaleoPhil]

...At any rate, there are also biases against our way of life(eg:- the notion that raw-meat-eating implies increased  savagery/aggressiveness and from my own experiences of vegans and RVAFers, I have found that such claims are inherently bogus, when viewing the whole communities as a whole.

It is a common stereotype perhaps exacerbated by the common misinterpretation of Hobbes' "nasty, brutish, and short" quip and early exaggerated drawings of what Neanderthals might have looked like, and perhaps also certain "primitive" and aggressive customs (that were invariably natural adaptations that made sense for the habitat of the tribal societies), such as near-nakedness and some traditional peoples' habit of (wisely) acting defensively and displaying readiness or ferocity when approached by strangers, and perhaps also the practice of hunting itself, which urbanites and vegetarians/vegans tend to look down upon as savage. Once a stranger is accepted as a guest, ally or friend by a HG society, I do not know of a single such society that does/did not treat them very well. The problem is, most agrarians/moderners never tried to reach the point of friendliness.

[RawZi]

Once a stranger is accepted as a guest, ally or friend by a HG society, I do not know of a single such society that does/did not treat them very well. The problem is, most agrarians/moderners never tried to reach the point of friendliness.

    Yes, most agrarians will never even give them a second look, other than looking at them as the zoo animals they keep.  There's no love in them for humans as a whole.

[PaleoPhil]

Oh well, this post may tick off Tyler, which is not my intention. I can't please everyone all the time.

I'm trying to read all of Dr. Harris' posts like I promised myself I would in this forum some time ago, and found more bad news for bananas. He reports that a laboratory reference suggests that even monkeys may do poorly on them (not surprising, since the sugary bananas of today are very different from the inedible, seed-filled bananas of the Paleolithic, as I mentioned above):

"Interestingly, one reference on nutrition in laboratory animals I found warned against providing too much succulent domestic fruit like bananas, etc., as the monkeys could eat so much it would contribute to gastric bloat. What does that tell you about how healthy our domestic frankenfruit is for us? It is so full of highly bioavailable sugar it is even dangerous for known frugivores!"

He goes on to consider the implications:

"The [lab] monkey diet, I would guess, deviates from the wild monkey EM2 in the bioavailability of carbohydrate, especially the fructose. Based on my reading, some captive monkeys will get obese or get gastric bloat from too much sugar in domestic fruit in ad lib diets. I find this very interesting. To me this indicates that we did not lose our fructose satiety signal, we likely never had one – I believe no animals rely on hormonal satiety to stop eating fructose, even the frugivores. As Wrangham has described, a diet of raw wild fruit is terribly metabolically inefficient, taking hours of chewing a day for the monkeys to get sustenance, due to the low ratio of sugars to pectins and starches and fibers in wild fruit. There is no satiety “off” switch for fructose, there is instead likely postitive feedback to keep eating in the interest of dispersing seeds for the plant. It might indeed have been adaptive (not just for the plants) to have no satiety switch for fructose, as it would signal to keep eating even though it’s a lot of work!

This all supports PaNu dogma that fructose is outside the EM2 due to its artifical bioavailability, and moves me even further in the Steffanson/Hyperlipid direction that all animal products are blessed and it’s the plants we should be wary of."

--Kurt G. Harris, MD, Calorie Restricted Monkeys Part II, http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/7/14/calorie-restricted-monkeys-part-ii.html, Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 4:10PM

Fascinating stuff. It's nice to see some confirmation of one of my amateur speculations. It seems that "30 bananas a day" is not a good regimen for monkeys, much less humans.

[Neone]

If bananas are unnatural, then how come when I just watched some david attenburough thing where they go and find some tribe thats never been seen before in new guinea.. When they're doing their trade thing the natives bring fruits (it looks like fruit is the main part of their diet since their teeth looked like shit haha) and something that looks like a big whack of bananas is one of the things they bring.. so if the edible banana of today is a mutant, what were these people eating from new guinea that looks just like bananaa?

Something that i have noticed after viewing a lot of 'tribe' stuff on youtube.... none of them look very... muscular?  I mean i imagine these people do a lot of physical activity even just walking everywhere, but to me they always seem kinda thin and frail..   although most of them probably dont know whats 'good' and 'bad' for them.. Im sure they eat a lot of fruit because its easy and YUMMY, but they're probably not thinking about their long-term health and such because they dont have access to the internet to open them up to all kinds of knowledge they would have never otherwise had access too.. haha

[cherimoya_kid]

Fascinating stuff. It's nice to see some confirmation of one of my amateur speculations. It seems that "30 bananas a day" is not a good regimen for monkeys, much less humans.

Here is where my extra years of experience come into play.  Attend me well, newbies.  I'm about to impart some wisdom.

I played around with the "30 bananas a day" diet for about 1.5 to 2 years, back in 2003-2004.  There were 3 types of bananas I tried this with.

1.  Grocery store bananas.  I could eat 50 a day, no problem.  There's very little taste change with them.  They are, quite literally, nothing but sucrose, for the most part, as far as their sugars content. Their taste has no subtle notes, it's just flat and sweet, nothing interesting.

2.  Health food store organic bananas.  I could eat maybe 30 a day, no more.  The taste change is more extreme, and sudden, and they are higher in nutrients.  They are grown on better soil, and their sugars are more complex.  Their flavor has subtle sour and even meaty notes.

3.  Organic half-wild burro and quadrato bananas, tree-ripened, grown on volcanic soil.  I could eat maybe 12 a day, at most.  They are shorter and thicker than the other banana types. The total mass of the banana is pretty much the same. The taste change is VERY extreme and sudden, and they are MUCH higher in nutrients, because of the richer soil.  The sugars are the most complex, and they have 5 or 6 different subtle flavors. 

As you can see, truly nutritious fruit grown on the best soil will automatically tell you when you've had enough.  You could probably grow bananas that would be so nutritious that you could only eat 2 or 3 a day, I'm sure, if they were completely full of nutrition from good soil and growing practices.  I'm just conjecturing, but it would not surprise me, maybe.

It really does all come down to the nutrition in the food.  Take at look at The Brix Book over at Rex Harrill's site.  www.crossroads.ws

This principle also applies to grass-fed animals.  Not all grass is equal, believe you me. When the grass is high-Brix, the animal is MUCH healthier, and so are the people who eat that animal.

There is much to learn.

[PaleoPhil]

If bananas are unnatural, then how come when I just watched some david attenburough thing where they go and find some tribe thats never been seen before in new guinea.. When they're doing their trade thing the natives bring fruits (it looks like fruit is the main part of their diet since their teeth looked like shit haha) and something that looks like a big whack of bananas is one of the things they bring.. so if the edible banana of today is a mutant, what were these people eating from new guinea that looks just like bananaa?

Perhaps it's a variety of frankenfruit that's able to survive in the wild? I know we have apple trees here in Vermont that grow wild despite being domesticated plants that were brought over from Europe (they seem to produce smaller fruit than their cultivated counterparts in the orchards, but it's still tasty). Is this banana you saw as sugary as the common Cavendish? I haven't been able to find any sources claiming that bananas were edible and widely eaten prior to domestication in New Guinea during the early Neolithic. If you find any, please let me know. Thanks.

Something that i have noticed after viewing a lot of 'tribe' stuff on youtube.... none of them look very... muscular?  I mean i imagine these people do a lot of physical activity even just walking everywhere, but to me they always seem kinda thin and frail..   although most of them probably dont know whats 'good' and 'bad' for them.. Im sure they eat a lot of fruit because its easy and YUMMY, but they're probably not thinking about their long-term health and such because they dont have access to the internet to open them up to all kinds of knowledge they would have never otherwise had access too.. haha

Yes, the HGs and horticulturalists whose diets are based on plants do seem to tend toward somewhat less muscular than those whose diets are heavy in meats or seafood, though not always (the Maori eat quite a bit of plant foods, I think, and are still very muscular despite this--genetics developed over a long time can apparently counteract some dietary effects, at least in the short term). The starkest example I've seen of this was images of skinny plant-based Australian aborigines vs. muscular seafood-eating aborigines. The bountifulness of food is probably another factor. It's tough to develop big muscles on a skimpy diet.

Yes, Cherimoya, the bananas that caused problems and even death for captive monkeys are probably the cheaper, less nutritious kind, but I haven't seen any reports that monkeys ate bananas in the wild prior to hybridization by humans, so they do not appear to be part of their Paleolithic diet. I would be very interested in any sources you have to the contrary. I could imagine monkeys possibly eating the seed-filled pre-domesticated wild bananas and pooping out the seeds, but I can't imagine many humans doing that. Plus, the range of wild bananas reportedly started out as limited to New Guinea and maybe some nearby islands. So wild bananas could not have been part of either Paleolithic human or monkey diets outside of the New Guinea area and they are not the guaranteed slam-dunk healthy food that most people seem to assume (especially when you consider that most people in the Western world eat mostly Cavendish bananas). Again, if you have info to the contrary I would be very interested in it and will adjust my conclusions where evidence warrants it.

[Ioanna]

are plantains any better?.. they have seeds, but they're still pretty sweet.  i never was into bananas, but frozen plantains through the juicer used to be a fave back in my too much fruit-consuming days.

[cherimoya_kid]

are plantains any better?.. they have seeds, but they're still pretty sweet.  i never was into bananas, but frozen plantains through the juicer used to be a fave back in my too much fruit-consuming days.

You have to eat plantains mushy and black to be able to eat them raw easily. It depends on the variety as to how high-quality they are...with plantains and bananas, the thicker-skinned are generally much higher quality, roughly speaking.

[goodsamaritan]

I live in a banana country (Philippines) where there is a never ending supply of bananas.

The best bananas are the wild tree ripened bananas that grow in the mountains, empty lots or in your back yard.  

Whether wild or cultivated, there are many varieties.

The common varieties in the wet markets are lakatan - latundan and saba.  Wilder ones are red bananas, senorita bananas, gloria bananas, etc.  These are not chemically polluted by default, they don't need it.

Latundan bananas are medicinal - high in potassium, useful for diarrhea / loose bowel movement.

The bananas we export are Cavendish Bananas which Filipinos do not eat.  Cavendish are not sold in the markets.  The reason our provincial folk say they don't eat it is because these cavendish bananas are only fit for the pigs.

Cavendish bananas are freaks that will never survive in nature.  They are treated with all sorts of chemicals.

And eating 30 bananas a day is unthinkable.  Even when I did fruitarian.

[TylerDurden]

I think rawists can safely assume that each and every one of Wrangham's silly claims is a load of b*ll, ever since he tried to claim the incredibly stupid figure of 5.7 to 6.2 hours a day in order for humans  to be able to chew enough amounts of raw-meat each day in order to survive. The guy is an out-and-out fraud, simple as that.

As for fruit, citing 1 artifical variety which is merely 1 of dozens of variants of 1 particular fruit doesn't really give credence to the notion that all fruit-eating is bad even for  natural frugivores.

[PaleoPhil]

I think rawists can safely assume that each and every one of Wrangham's silly claims is a load of b*ll, ever since he tried to claim the incredibly stupid figure of 5.7 to 6.2 hours a day in order for humans  to be able to chew enough amounts of raw-meat each day in order to survive. The guy is an out-and-out fraud, simple as that.

No need to get riled up over Wrangham, Tyler. We don't need the Wrangham reference, as we have the attestation of one of the world's foremost chimpanzee experts, Elizabeth Vinson Lonsdorf, PhD, Director of LPZ's Lester E. Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of Apes and faculty member of the University of Chicago's Committee on Evolutionary Biology:

"What I can tell you is that [chimpanzees] eat for about 6 to 8 hours of each day, are omnivorous, and allocate their feeding time in the following way:

A breakdown by feeding time for the chimps of Gombe showed their intake of foods to be (very roughly) 60% of feeding time for fruit, 20% for leaves, with the other items in the diet varying greatly on a seasonal basis depending on availability. Seasonal highs could range as high as (approx.) 17% of feeding time for blossoms, 22-30% for seeds, 10-17% for insects, 2-6% for meat, with other miscellaneous items coming in at perhaps 4% through most months of the year.

Miscellaneous items eaten by chimps include eggs and honey that chimps rob from beehives (as well as the embedded bees themselves). Soil is also occasionally eaten, either for the mineral content or to ingest clay (which absorbs toxins)."

("Questions About Chimpanzees Answered by Elizabeth Vinson Lonsdorf," http://www.discoverchimpanzees.org/researchers/question02.php)

As for fruit, citing 1 artifical variety which is merely 1 of dozens of variants of 1 particular fruit doesn't really give credence to the notion that all fruit-eating is bad even for  natural frugivores.

Another straw man. Dr. Harris didn't argue that all fruit is bad or unnatural for frugivores, just domesticated bananas and other "frankenfruit."

[TylerDurden]

No need to get riled up over Wrangham, Tyler. We don't need the Wrangham reference, as we have the attestation of one of the world's foremost chimpanzee experts, Elizabeth Vinson Lonsdorf, PhD, Director of LPZ's Lester E. Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of Apes and faculty member of the University of Chicago's Committee on Evolutionary Biology:

Again, this is useless information. All herbivores eat throughout much of the day, it doesn't make raw plant food less useful for them, it's just a matter of calories/nutrients. I strongly suspect that if chimpanzees suddenly turned to a diet consisting mostly of meat that they would start suffering, healthwise.

Another straw man. Dr. Harris didn't argue that all fruit is bad or unnatural for frugivores, just domesticated bananas and other "frankenfruit."

Again, I'm not remotely convinced of the above argument re "frankenfoods". As cherimoya_kid pointed out, most fruits nowadays(and even meats) have actually a very low level of nutrients than found in the past, due to intensive farming methods. In other words, even the artificially-created fruits would be perfectly fine if grown in good soil etc. And those "frankenfoods" aren't really comparable to genetically-modified fruits with fish-genes in tomatoes, the latter being more correctly labelled "frankenfoods".

[carnivore]

Again, this is useless information. All herbivores eat throughout much of the day, it doesn't make raw plant food less useful for them, it's just a matter of calories/nutrients. I strongly suspect that if chimpanzees suddenly turned to a diet consisting mostly of meat that they would start suffering, healthwise.
 Again, I'm not remotely convinced of the above argument re "frankenfoods". As cherimoya_kid pointed out, most fruits nowadays(and even meats) have actually a very low level of nutrients than found in the past, due to intensive farming methods. In other words, even the artificially-created fruits would be perfectly fine if grown in good soil etc. And those "frankenfoods" aren't really comparable to genetically-modified fruits with fish-genes in tomatoes, the latter being more correctly labelled "frankenfoods".

The macronutrient balance of the fruits have also been completely modified : less fiber, more sugar (especially fructose) and water. This makes them to easy to swallow and overeat... Modern fruits have been heavily selected during centuries by palate accustomed to cooked food. Not surprising they are not suitable for rawpaleo fooders!

[TylerDurden]

The macronutrient balance of the fruits have also been completely modified : less fiber, more sugar (especially fructose) and water. This makes them to easy to swallow and overeat... Modern fruits have been heavily selected during centuries by palate accustomed to cooked food. Not surprising they are not suitable for rawpaleo fooders!

This is completely misleading. As has been admitted by farmers, they routinely add too much water to their plants or artificial fertiliser etc. What's more crucial is the aspect of the nature of the soil etc. And fruits may have been tweaked in minor ways, but apples are still apples etc. - and besides, the term "frankenfoods" is solely meant to be applied to genetically-modified fruits etc., not standard cultivated fruits.

[cherimoya_kid]

The macronutrient balance of the fruits have also been completely modified : less fiber, more sugar (especially fructose) and water. This makes them to easy to swallow and overeat... Modern fruits have been heavily selected during centuries by palate accustomed to cooked food. Not surprising they are not suitable for rawpaleo fooders!

It's a little more complicated.  Yes, in many cases, cultivated fruits are larger, sweeter, more watery, and less fibrous, but there are exceptions.  Wild strawberries are actually much sweeter than the cultivated varieties.  Wild papaya are not very different at all from many cultivated varieties. Some wild avocadoes are pretty similar, relatively, to cultivated, in size/flavor/etc..  

It's not so much that all wild fruits are better than all cultivated.  Some soils are quite deficient in many nutrients because the rocks that were weathered to created those soils are deficient, or because of natural weathering. I have tested the wild muscadine grapes that grow around here, and the Brix readings do vary from place to place, depending on soil quality.