Is Fruit Meant For Man

[Sully]

If you can't get wild, get the closest thing to it. I got a mini watermelon at a farmer's market a while ago. Yellow, many seeds, not very sweet tasted more like pure water with a very small hint of sweetness.

Wild grapes are in season now here.

[raw]

If you can't get wild, get the closest thing to it. I got a mini watermelon at a farmer's market a while ago. Yellow, many seeds, not very sweet tasted more like pure water with a very small hint of sweetness.

sully, please, save those seeds and send them to me.

[raw]

I think she is referring to India.

yes, I'm from south east Asia. it's part of west bangal /Bangladesh where there is royal bangal tigers live. i believe, my birth place has most exotic fruits which are still from ancient indigenous plants. like red bananas (which Hindus use for worshiping), seeded bananas and other 20 different kinds of bananas you can find. i never tastes bananas as aweful as USA. i see so many exotic fruits in my life (all in my grandma's fruits' garden) unbelievable! i see that it takes couple of generations to mature one fruit trees to have fruits. so, my great grandparents put one fruit tree and we enjoy that tree, but they didn't. back home, also we value the land different way. it's shame to sell a home that you inherit. so, all those indigenous fruits plants come with the home and that's priceless. 

[PaleoPhil]

Well, hot topics is really the place. After all, even meats are unnatural, given GM meats and grainfeeding.

I suspect you didn't watch the video. Vitalis' answer was that, yes, (raw, wild) fruits are meant for man, but extreme fruitarianism is not. Vitalis said he eats "pounds and pounds of fruit" and thinks fruits are "fantastic". Why would a video that promotes raw wild fruits as "fantastic" not be considered raw Paleo?

[miles]

Seemed a good video to me.

[PaleoPhil]

Yeah, just some minor errors in it. As a matter of fact, Vitalis still eats WAY more fruit than I do. So it makes no sense to put this video in hot topics.

[raw]

@raw  Yeah he eats meat now.

here he eats raw bison

this guy steals my recipe. that's my invention to fix the breakfast for my husband. i usually eat the meat just the whole piece without put anything on it. but my husband insists me to make it more beautiful. so, from my head i come up to this.  i don't encourage to put those salt in the meat. those wild meat has its own natural salt in it. thanks sully for the video.

[invisible]

Well fruit is certainly digestible by humans and we can extract nutrition from it easily, although even confirmed carnivores such as lions can.

[kurite]

Well fruit is certainly digestible by humans and we can extract nutrition from it easily, although even confirmed carnivores such as lions can.

Thats because there aren't all that many digestive adaptations for eating fruit. Fruit bearing trees literally grow fruit to feed you (while also spreading their seeds), fruit is suppose to be easy to digest.

[KD]

He mentions this right in the video...its 'goal' is propagation and no more. the trees are probably indeed intended to feed SOMETHING, but looking just at the basic design of many of these even so called 'prehistoric' fruits, its blatantly clear that minor fauna arn't walking away with much of these large seeds in their digestive tract. It would be interesting as with the instincto experiments to see if accepted near-carnivores would choose smaller berries and similar fruits over ones with larger bearing seeds which also tend to be way sweeter (at least in our period). Even today's fruitarian leaders accept that melons, grapes and other such foods are as inedible in nature as olives and other such things. Even the concord grapes, are a total pain in the ass as far as chewing or swallowing the seeds, although I'm sure its possible some primates spit similar things out.

The other misconception it seems is that just because a fruit has seeds its not been tampered with and is ok?? Sure the seedless varietys are usually worse, but There isn't a remarkable difference in watermelon, grapes etc...I mean they affect my body differently, but they are both just high sugar fungus food in any serious quantity. for me anyway.

[Sully]

Even today's fruitarian leaders accept that melons, grapes and other such foods are as inedible in nature as olives and other such things.

That's completely off. Wild grapes are much more edible than raw olives. Have you ever seen bushman eat wild watermelon? You can't compare these wild fruits to olives.

[KD]

hmm, ok, obviously I was exaggerating as none of these foods are 'inedible'. The point is, there have been a few fruitarian promoters that agree that many wild fruits are not sustainable or appealing as food for man, and dont see this as a massive contradiction. I agree with Daniel, and also the title in that fruits are not meant for man at all and certainly not in any design as a dominant food source. This doesn't mean they are wrong to consume, even in modern permutations. But yeah I believe other than nutritional content of wild fruit, or contrarily the amount of mutation or toxicity and elevated sugar in cultivated fruits, they are essentially the same dietarily speaking and in regard to any systemic imbalances a contemporary person might have eating them. Just my opinion.

[djr_81]

Even the concord grapes, are a total pain in the ass as far as chewing or swallowing the seeds, although I'm sure its possible some primates spit similar things out.

Have you ever had wild concord grapes KD?
They're actually very easy to eat. They are a bit tougher skinned and do have larger seeds but they're still much easier to eat than many other edibles in the wild.

[KD]

Have you ever had wild concord grapes KD?
They're actually very easy to eat. They are a bit tougher skinned and do have larger seeds but they're still much easier to eat than many other edibles in the wild.

As a personal theory, much in the same way that one might eschew green vegetable matter/grasses in light of consuming grass and vegetation grazing animals, its possible that eating fruits in any form in the modern period make up for vitamins once obtained from neglecting the omnivorous animals, such as swine, birds, rodents, lizards, and bugs who all consume sugar from plants in addition to their appropriate prey. Also of course if one is neglecting whole animals parts/organs etc..

It is possible that even if we 'evolved' in tropical locales, that these fruits were not 'designed' for us to eat but for other since long creatures that were our prey.

I have never had wild concord grapes, but I've had quite a few wild tropical fruits and berries, and some fairly wild oranges and bananas. Some are indeed way more delicious then their modern counterparts and others not so much. I know that even as a 100% fruit eater that wild jakfruit was extremely sweet to me like modern candy, despite its larger percentage of fat. Ive never eaten durian off a tree but suspect the same thing. Just logistically, one can see that we are not meant to propagate these plants, but not suggesting like any fallen food is not suitable for our flexible system.

I think what Daniel is saying even as an omnivore is that these foods -even in their optimal state but when we are divorced from natural systems and requirements- should not be a substantial part of the human diet, particularly if one is going to factor in burning fats efficiently. On top of that, yeah it matters also where that fruit comes from but that doesn't trump the former.

What it comes down to tho, with the concord grapes, is that although I find them tasty in small quantities, its a challenge to either spit or chew the seeds. If we are to accept that we would regularly consume half eaten seeds and similar fibrous matter, then we are making a whole differnt set of assumptions on what the natural diet of man is and it becomes more tenuous to rule out seeded grains and grasses and similar things. Again i'm not saying its wrong, as I believe in eating a variety of foods, often times indpendent of whether they are 'meant for us'.

[miles]

You don't have to chew or spit out the seeds.. You just swallow them.. The plant doesn't want you to chew the seeds either. It's not hard to eat wild fruits without damaging the seeds.. And if you don't damage the seeds it doesn't matter if you swallow them or spit them, but mostly it's easier for them to go down your throat.

[goodsamaritan]

You don't have to chew or spit out the seeds.. You just swallow them.. The plant doesn't want you to chew the seeds either. It's not hard to eat wild fruits without damaging the seeds.. And if you don't damage the seeds it doesn't matter if you swallow them or spit them, but mostly it's easier for them to go down your throat.

Yup, It's fun watching myself poop out watermelon seeds.

[djr_81]

You don't have to chew or spit out the seeds.. You just swallow them.. The plant doesn't want you to chew the seeds either. It's not hard to eat wild fruits without damaging the seeds.. And if you don't damage the seeds it doesn't matter if you swallow them or spit them, but mostly it's easier for them to go down your throat.

Exactly. The seeds want to end up on the ground, whole, inside a pile of shit so they can sprout.
Most seeds are unpleasant when chewed and Concord Grapes definitely fall into this category. They're a little peppery which can be pleasant with a seed or two but after that it's an instinctive thing to not chew them.

[KD]

uh, I think you guys are arguing something that no one is disputing and missing all the larger points. I ate fruits almost exclusively for 2 years and a large amount for the surrounding years. I tried to eat seeded fruits and I often swallowed the seeds. With concord grapes, berries and similar fruits, its basically impossible not to chew the seeds unless you are plain downing the fruit whole. watermelon is completely different as you hardly even chew it. Either way, you can see how even the most 'paleo' of fruits as opposed to say mango or something are still obviously more suited towards birds and other animals that would spread the seeds. I do believe humans are opportunists and I think our digestive system IS suitable for SOME fruit by nature, but if you were to match animals and humans to corresponding foods/fruits like some childrens workbook exercise, all the fruits would be matched up to other fauna IMO. Perhaps thats not too important in a practical sense but the main point is that seeded fruits don't really make much of a difference other than the reasons I mentioned. They are still likely many steps removed from fruits of the past, even if found unkept.

[yuli]

With concord grapes, berries and similar fruits, its basically impossible not to chew the seeds unless you are plain downing the fruit whole. watermelon is completely different as you hardly even chew it.

Those tasty little wild grapes are in season now and I find it easy eating them pretty quickly and spitting out the seeds...it's really not more difficult then ripping through a carcass, just different.
I can maneuver the grape in my mouth with my teeth & tongue to get the juicy part out and separate the seeds, something a wolf or tiger may have trouble doing. When I had rat pets, who are omnivores - they would do similar things like separating the seeds from the grapes, they would use both their little hands and teeth in a similar way. So while fruit is not the only thing meant for man it does feel natural to eat it, well to me anyway, I just think it was much harder to get so much of it in the nature, at least we couldn't have it every day of the year for sure.

Oh and watermelon seeds actually taste nice to me for some reason, I like crunching on them.
I don't chew my berries too much, so when I swallow it I think some of the tiny hard seeds survive and pass through, just not all of them (it's just like sperm, LOL, not all of them make it  ).

I agree the fruits with no seeds are freaky, they also taste weird like just a lot of sweetness but not enough other flavor, I always go for the smaller varieties with more seeds...they are less sweet but often have a way more interesting flavor!

As to humans being more suited for meat, that's probably true but look at it this way...bears are suited for meat, they digest it well...but snakes digest it better, I see my constrictor swallow a rat twice his girth, no need to chew even once, in fact he can't chew, the lump is gone by tomorrow. So just cause we digest something better doesn't mean were not suited to eat the other thing necessarily. And humans can chew a heck of a lot better then a lion, lions can rip better, but we can maneuver our jaws more thats for sure (I can see that even from watching the way my cats eat).

[Raw Kyle]

I've never seen that Daniel Vitalis guy before but I instantly liked him a lot. I guess I don't follow the "movement" like many other do. I watched a bunch of his videos. Thanks for the post.

As for the topic, no food is "meant" for any organism. All organisms are trying to survive and propagate and it's an all out war for eater and eaten to one up the other constantly. It's partially invisible to our eyes because it's been going on for so long that it's reached a "dynamic equilibrium," like in chemistry when a reaction is finished. The reaction is actually still happening but in a way that the products are changing from one to another at an equal rate. What I'm saying is that no plant is "intended" for any animal to eat, and no animal is "intended" for any predator to catch and eat. The plant eaters and the predators had to fight for their ability to procure and digest their food, and the fight never ends. Birds can break down the enzyme inhibitors in seeds better than humans not because seeds are "meant for" birds to eat, but because they have adapted to them.

I understand terms like "meant for" are usually just short hand phrases but I think it's a bad point to start off a discussion. The real questions I'm concerned with are whether fruits are healthy for me, and the two sources of information I see as informative towards answering that are the history of humans eating them as well as scientific information on what happens in the body when they are eaten. With the evidence of today I think it's pretty obvious that fruits had a relatively small role in human diets pre-agriculture and should therefore have a relatively small role now. I believe this is backed up with the science on insulin and everything else related to a large sugar intake (whether it's "natural" fruit sugar or not).

[RawZi]

    That  reminds me of:

Alice Walker, American author, The Color Purple:

"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than blacks were made for whites, or women for men."

It's a common vegan adage.

    I like Daniel too.  Who doesn't?  I'm not sure 30BaD has even made fun of him yet.  He always seemed healthy/balanced, since I first noticed him.  I'm glad to see the new videos posted too. 

I've never seen that Daniel Vitalis guy before but I instantly liked him a lot. ... What I'm saying is that no plant is "intended" for any animal to eat, and no animal is "intended" for any predator to catch and eat. The plant eaters and the predators had to fight for their ability to procure and digest their food, and the fight never ends. Birds can break down the enzyme inhibitors in seeds better than humans not because seeds are "meant for" birds to eat, but because they have adapted to them.

I understand terms like "meant for" are usually just short hand phrases but I think it's a bad point to start off a discussion.

[miles]

With concord grapes, berries and similar fruits, its basically impossible not to chew the seeds unless you are plain downing the fruit whole.

It's easy for me(with the wild berries/fruits I've eaten, as well as seeded bought fruits)... You don't close your teeth fully and hard.. you just chew softly and not fully.. It's fruit, it's juice.. you hardly need to chew, and it all just moves down your throat.

I like ... too ... swallow it ... just like sperm, LOL ...  ).

[yuli]

very funny miles...I see you're into scrabble! 

[PaleoPhil]

Vitalis says "Fruits ARE for man...."

@Tyler, you still haven't answered my question re: why this video was moved to Hot Topics. I suspect you based that on the title, but if you watch the video, you'll see that Daniel Vitalis' answer to the question is yes, that natural fruits are for man, just not excesses of overly hybridized and unnaturally sugary fruits 365 days a year, which fits the biological and paleoanthropological evidence. Here is the heart of the interview:

Is Fruit Meant For Man? w/Daniel Vitalis, episode #547
The Raw Food World show

1:04 "I don't say anything like fruits aren't natural for man. What I'm saying is the fruits that people are eating today are as hybridized from their wild state as chiuauas are from wolves. Understand a chiuaua is a wolf. It shares the genome of all dogs that come from wolves.... In the same way that bananas today are like the chiuaua of fruits. Bananas today contain no seeds, they're sterile mutants. In fact, the modern banana was invented in the 1800s. Previous to the yellow banana was the red and green banana, that were cooking bananas, that weren't eaten raw, and previous to that was the wild banana that is riddled with seeds and barely edible. ....

So the idea is not that fruits aren't natural for man, it's that when we think of fruits, we're thinking of the apples and oranges and pears and all these things that humans have been breeding and breeding and breeding for so many generations now that they scarcely resemble, often, the fruits that they come from. I eat fruits all the time, in fact, just before I came here to do the Longevity Now Conference, I was at home in Maine and it was the peak of the autumn berry season, of the autumn olive, which is an amazing berry ... and I harvested pounds and pounds of that and I'm going to eat that, and that's a wild food. What I know about real fruits is that they're smaller than we think, they're less sugary than we think, they have far more seed material, because the real reason a tree produces fruit is to propagate itself. Feeding us is secondary. Fruits ARE for man, but supermarket fruits are freaky mutations, and it doesn't mean they're not occasionally OK for us, but it hardly makes sense to eat a diet of completely sterile hybrid foods and then go around telling everybody that's the most natural diet for us. That's just crazy. It's actually completely unnatural. So I believe fruits are fantastic, but I like to focus on things like wild berry and autumn berry and the fruits that are the most natural and if I'm going to eat hybrid fruits I try to eat fruits with seeds in them that could actually propagate themselves. Human beings are becoming sterile really quickly."

Mark chimed in by saying that the wild bananas the two of them tried were inundated with seeds and weren't sweet.

Daniel then goes on to praise hunter gatherer / Paleo diets and how his goal is to eat (and perhaps live?) like a hunter gatherer. He also mentions: "The concord grape where I live is fantastic, I like that, as a matter of fact I'm using it now."

   I was a practicing 100% raw organic tree ripened juice filled fruit fruivore several times by diet, sometimes lasting several months.  It gave me energy.  My flexibility was good.  My bones started bending and falling in and apart.  My teeth started to too.  I couldn't stop peeing, and was dead thirsty constantly.  I lost all muscle strength.  My colon completely stopped, and I had to dig my stool out by hand.  Fruit is not good for my bowels, and the more I eat of it, the worse it gets.  

Most of your symptoms on a fruitarian diet are pretty commonly reported on fruitarian forums.

I'm not saying that fruits are good for everyone. Definitely not.
All I'm saying is that some amount of fiber  (even small amount) is good for us.
Maybe you would do better with the fiber from some wild veggies?

Thanks for correcting your earlier statement, Hannibal, but like Lex, I don't know whether even a small amount of fiber is good or even necessary. I did add some fiber-containing foods back into my diet to see if a small amount of added fiber would help at all with the constipation, while avoiding the worsened mineral deficiencies that plentiful fiber gives me, but I didn't notice any benefits. I kept some of those foods in my WOE anyway, because I didn't notice any negative symptoms from them and I enjoy the taste and texture variety and it also puts my friends and relatives more at ease if I eat something more than meat and fat.

I don't agree with the Fiber Menace guy on everything, but fiber has been more of a menace for me than a benefit (although even he doesn't claim that fruit and veggie fiber is bad). YMMV, of course.

I agree with Daniel, and also the title in that fruits are not meant for man at all...

He didn't say that. He said almost the opposite (see above). People are apparently missing the fact that the video was created by raw vegans Matt Monarch and Angela Stokes Monarch, not some anti-fruit folks and that Vitalis extols wild fruits in the video.

....   I like Daniel too.  Who doesn't?  I'm not sure 30BaD has even made fun of him yet.  ....

Yeah, they generated several different negative speculations about him, such as he might be a plant from the meat industry or a shyster who's only after money. I don't personally know Daniel Vitalis and I don't particularly care what his motivations are, I'm not interested in defending him personally, and I'm skeptical about some things he has said in other videos, but I thought this interview of him was rather good, the best I've seen of him and about as close to our perspective as one can find anywhere on the Internet. I didn't agree 100% with everything, but that's true of nearly every diet video. I do know that the people at 30BAD are quick with excuses and from what I've seen they're frequently wrong about things.

[TylerDurden]

The problem is that Vitalis is mentioning an old canard favoured by ZCers like William, that much of modern fruits are overly inbred etc. This is a very biased argument as the same argument can(and should as well) be used for all domesticated meats as they come from animals which have become severely inbred over many millenia of domestication, not even counting the severely negative effects of modern artificial insemination in that regard.