Is Fruit Meant For Man

[kurite]

A couple I found perticularly interesting was ones like how to improve vision using the bates method, how eating to much fruit actually produces AGEs in the blood and others along those lines.

[ster546464@yahoo.co.uk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVmoz4Cbupc

more points

[Sully]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVmoz4Cbupc

more points

I don't agree with everything Vitalis says or does.

However, I agree with him on more points than I do with Harley aka durianrider.
Buying loads of domesticated fruit is the natural diet for humans? Give me a break!

Undomesticated sweet fruits are in nature. They are not available all year round however.

When the hell is durianrider going to interview me. I think he is scared.

[ster546464@yahoo.co.uk]

he blocked my comments for promoting meat/weston price/paleo and discussing weston price

[ster546464@yahoo.co.uk]

I understand the difference between natural fruits and hybrids etc.

i think the real point is, is it sensible to be a fruitarian ? and is it sensible to eat 70 bananas a day ?
he doesnt need to overcomplicate things, all that sugar from the fruit will simply cause many health problems

[Sully]

heres my reply to durianrider

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1FQJaZwwUk

[miles]

Nice reply Sully, but in the box you wrote about high-fat raw meat diet. From what you've written/shown you don't eat high-fat. If you did eat high fat you probably wouldn't do well. But then, it depends what one's opinion of 'high-fat' means.

[Sully]

High fat is 50% of total calories or more cumming from fat.

I got some ground beef and some meat. Calories from my meal I will eat later will be in the 60-65% range.

Durianrider recommends 80-90% calories from carbs.


Edit: they were raw oysters, i never eat less than 50% of calories from fat. I would feel like I am starving.

You do know that fat should look proportionality smaller than your meat. Fat is denser in calories miles.

Even when I was getting most of my fat from nuts in the beginning I was eating at a minimum 60% calories from fat.

[Sully]

Nice reply Sully, but in the box you wrote about high-fat raw meat diet. From what you've written/shown you don't eat high-fat. If you did eat high fat you probably wouldn't do well. But then, it depends what one's opinion of 'high-fat' means.

What have I written or shown that suggest that less than 50% of my calories are coming from fat?

[Sully]

i am eating just seom ground beef today miles
its around 85% lean, which brings i to about 65% calories from fat

http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-beef-gound-85-lean-raw_f-Y2lkPTI4NDQ0JmJpZD0xJmZpZD03MDEyNyZlaWQ9NTk5NzkxMDQ1JnBvcz0xJnBhcj0ma2V5PXJhdyBiZWVm.html

It may be more around 82% lean, some where in the area of 65-70% calories of fat

[kurite]

Great Vid Sully. I bet DR has already seen it knowing him!

[Sully]

Great Vid Sully. I bet DR has already seen it knowing him!

Hah.

Seriously though, I don't understand how he holds onto his way of thinking. I bet he feels he has to now.
 I actually would like to chat with him. Have a healthy discussion/debate.
I wonder if he is doing it for the money. People prob have some any problems with his diet he prescribes, he prob makes so much money through online consultations.

We chatted back and fourth in comments on his video Vegan Preacher Boy, he just moves around what I am saying and brings up something else.
It's like he has a mental block. Can't except the truth.

[KD]

yeah, my gut would say don't bother, as you've already answered your own question about it. Theres nothing much to attack but their own mental creations when one is presented with fit, healthy, level headed, well researched (not to mentioned experienced), and sometimes even nice! people like on this forum.

At the same time, all your well documented passions and such are just perfect for hammering on this fact, as even people like Daniel can be pigeonholed for being 'commercial' or promoting cooked foods or drugs or any other embellished thing. So right on man!

[Sully]

even people like Daniel can be pigeonholed for being 'commercial' or promoting cooked foods or drugs or any other embellished thing. So right on man!

I guess it's better for him to spend his time bashing someone more known with more things to bash. hah
And thanks!

[miles]

Yeah Sully exactly, what you're eating is the right kind of amount. 15% by mass, 60% by calories... This is right. But that's not really high fat.. that's just normal amount fat, right amount of fat, comfortable amount of fat, good amount of fat. People here are hearing 'high-fat' and eating like 60-90% by mass of fat... This is what is high fat. Normal fat must be what you eat... Because it is the normal, right amount. If it was high fat, then it would not be good... High fat, is 300g meat/300g fat. This is high fat, and people here are eating this and feeling like shit, naturally... because that's a high amount of fat. You are eating a normal amount of fat, a suitable amount of fat...

It doesn't make sense to call the right amount of fat 'high'..

[Sully]

People here are hearing 'high-fat' and eating like 60-90% by mass of fat... This is what is high fat. Normal fat must be what you eat... Because it is the normal, right amount.

Dude, I don't think anyone here eats that much fat...
That's just ridiculous, and maybe not possible, that's like a pound of fat to 8oz of meat
Durianrider recommends 10-5% fat for calories. So 60-70% fat ratio is def high fat to him.

Some people here have done experiments of 90% fat by calories. But I don't even know of anyone with sticks to as a daily regimen.

[miles]

There are plenty of people who are eating that much, on this forum, Sully... and they all feel like shit.

[Sully]

what percentage of mass again? 60-90%

who here does that?....


Edit: if their normal, they would throw up after every meal after eating that much fat

[miles]

There is an active thread even, right now, where the guy is eating 300g fatty meat + 300g fat per day. He thinks that's normal, he thinks that's 'high fat', because it is. It's high, not a suitable amount, and that's why he feels like shit. But no one apart from me is telling him that >.> Everyone else is telling him he's not adapted or some shit. All the people who complain of low energy are eating like this. That's what most new people think is meant by 'high fat'. When you say high-fat, you mean high-fat relative to people who are eating non-paleo. On a paleo forum, people would expect 15% fat by mass, for example, not to be considered 'high fat'. It's 'high fat' relative to a low-fat raw vegan, but not 'high fat' for paleo..

Yuri was/is eating this crazy amount of fat, and every other person who complains of lethargy eating 'high fat' is eating like this. They think they need this much fat not to have rabbit starvation, because when others say they need high fat, this is the amount they consider high.. so they're stuffing themselves with it, force-feeding..

5% by mass is fine even. You might then get a desire for more fat, and you can have it. Get a fattier cut next time, have a bit of extra fat with it... but 5% would be fine to start with even, until you feel you need more. Maybe they'll settle around the 10%-20% by mass range.

People are starting with 50% by mass, and trying to eat as much fat as they can stuff themselves with, as this is the kind of advice that is being given to them.. And so they feel like shit.

If you are eating fruit, you can handle MORE fat even, than a person eating no plants..

Really Sully, read closer, lots of people here are eating like this..

[KD]

Miles, I don't think you are old enough to be anyone's guardian here.

if you seriously think that all of peoples problems equate to them eating a too large percentage of fat, then it isn't a mystery to me why they are listening to other people. Either way, all you can do is offer your own experience of how your mostly muscle meat diet gives you wondrous health or whatever. The concern as most people know is not rabbit starvation at all as brought up in the other thread but other issues associated with too much protein or too much glucose per their desire.

Sully is right, high fat means high according to usually according to the ADA or similar organizations which would be over 30-40% by calories or higher than what a typical American eats which is already considered to be unhealthy. To the types of people he and Daniel are engaged with argument, 20-30% is considered to be too much fat and therefore 'high'.

50-60% is not a 'just right am mount' this is totally relative, subjective, and dependent on ones goals and lifestyle. Although amongst people engaged in a raw paleo type diet, high fat would  be at minimum inclusive of anything that burns fat as primary fuel, and beyond in my definition.

[kurite]

Hah.

Seriously though, I don't understand how he holds onto his way of thinking. I bet he feels he has to now.
 I actually would like to chat with him. Have a healthy discussion/debate.
I wonder if he is doing it for the money. People prob have some any problems with his diet he prescribes, he prob makes so much money through online consultations.

We chatted back and fourth in comments on his video Vegan Preacher Boy, he just moves around what I am saying and brings up something else.
It's like he has a mental block. Can't except the truth.

He makes a crap load of money through online consultations. I think its $700 a month per person...So even if he has like 20 people hes making $14k. Plus he gets donations. Its no wonder why he can afford 100's of lbs of fruit a week.

[KD]

I guess it's better for him to spend his time bashing someone more known with more things to bash. hah
And thanks!

yeah...This is why I've personally stopped having sympathy or desire to 'bring over' those who can't already tell the difference in integrity (not to mention health - but I guess that is my opinion) between the two for instance. I mean particularly on just addressing raw meat eaters honestly, it was claimed that a frail mate recently "are more raw meat than anyone in Australia" yet also said a large portion (>40%?) of calories was also criticized as being honey. Obviously not only does this not make sense mathematically there was some mental lapse in folks like Scott Wheeler (featured on Australia's TODAY show) and wodg (who boots these dudes frequently so should be known), who both eat almost certainly more meat, not to mention are very fit and even do endurance sports.

[Raw Kyle]

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.

I don't think these two things are comparable. A modern conventionally farmed apple has over 100 times the sugar content of a wild one, a modern beef steer is not similarly divergent from it's wild counterpart or ancient ancestors. In fact you can look at the fatty acids of grass fed beef and see that they are very similar to the fatty acids of grass fed bison. Much closer than comparing wild fruit to farmed fruit.

[kurite]

I don't think these two things are comparable. A modern conventionally farmed apple has over 100 times the sugar content of a wild one, a modern beef steer is not similarly divergent from it's wild counterpart or ancient ancestors. In fact you can look at the fatty acids of grass fed beef and see that they are very similar to the fatty acids of grass fed bison. Much closer than comparing wild fruit to farmed fruit.

That 100x sugar argument is completely wrong. Yes there are certain wild variations of wild apples that have very low sugar content but there are plenty that are sweet, not as sweet as todays apples but still sweet. Same with other wild fruit. Wild raspberries are the sweetest fruit Ive eaten.

[PaleoPhil]

Yeah Sully exactly, what you're eating is the right kind of amount. 15% by mass, 60% by calories... This is right. But that's not really high fat.. that's just normal amount fat, right amount of fat, comfortable amount of fat, good amount of fat. People here are hearing 'high-fat' and eating like 60-90% by mass of fat... This is what is high fat. Normal fat must be what you eat... Because it is the normal, right amount. If it was high fat, then it would not be good... High fat, is 300g meat/300g fat. This is high fat, and people here are eating this and feeling like shit, naturally... because that's a high amount of fat. You are eating a normal amount of fat, a suitable amount of fat...

It doesn't make sense to call the right amount of fat 'high'..

Who is eating 300g meat/300g fat and what does that translate into in terms of % calories as fat?