Maybe no one here has read this yet:
Wild and Ancient Fruit: Is it Really Small, Bitter, and Low in Sugar? @
http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/
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.
These substances can also make some types of wild fruit difficult to eat in large quantities without feeling queasy.
has anyone not experienced this with trying to get significant calories even from our (non-ancient) wild berries, grapes, apples, stone fruits etc...leaving only to believe this nonsense that durian and bananas being of the tropics are then
similar?? to their ancient ancestors?
She always gives a helpful comprehensive take
yetsomehow this isn't super significant? that many of the natural toxins have been bread out of a food? to then suggest what people ate in the past? Masterjohn's perspective below in the comments on potatos being now far more healthful than their previous wild versions is one legitimate perspective I suppose, however when added to this gem..
"
The Kitavans eat 10% of their energy intake as fruit, coming to 400 grams by weight or 220 calories per day. If you ate this as modern strawberries, you could eat 55 medium ones and get 391 mg of vitamin C. Regardless of the pitfalls of modern commercial fruit, that’s a heck of a lot of vitamin C and most people don’t get anywhere near it, probably to the detriment of their health. " Chris Masterjohn (04:56:42) :
at a certain point one has to stop mixing theory and suspicion (while criticizing other theory and suspicion) and realize that even people as touted as eating these 'paleo' high carb diets eat a very select of it from fruit...even when its wildly (literally and figuratively) available year round.
http://www.icuc-iwmi.org/files/Publications/Bourke%20-%20Production%20pattern%20for%20fruits%20&%20Nuts.pdfcape gooseberry, elder (Sambucus nigra), naranjilla (Solanum quitoense), highland yellow passionfruit (suga prut) (Passiflora ligularis) and black raspberry, guava (Psidium guajava), and carambola (Averrhoa carambola) are some of the common fruits eaten in
tropical Papua New Guinea. Is anyone eating these foods or in this way? if not they are just shooting shit about how to rationalize a diet that no one eats in nature like all bananas and salad and some nuts and 2 oz of beef because it has a corresponding macro-nutrient ratio. which is exactly the kind of bad science people are supposedly combating.
When examining the perplexity of all the most naturally lived peoples we have on record Its no surprise that even in the really 'pure' human and high carb intake that without control over the food supply it is unwise or impossible from many directions to make a diet composed heavily of raw fruit. This is where one can discuss glucose, fructose etc... because this is the 'science' of the human body..which unfortunately is too abstract to resolve why modern people can have problems with fruits..no matter the quality or wild..just possibly less so due to these various factors.
Without getting into too many topics like glucose etc..I can say based on experience of eating almost 100% fruits for years..living in a semi-wild space it was difficult to eat even the modern and less toxic varieties fruits like carambola or guava in any serious quantity...nevermind berries or fruits my particular ancestors would have had access to in the past 200,000 years as 70-90% of a diet. Often times there are lags in fruits in season or even with hundreds of trees like papaya often bearing few ripe fruits - that are also tasteiest when ripened intelligently by a person and not rotten and fermented on the ground.
Essentially the fructose and other arguments - while flawed - correspond with many of the actual results, with eating 'low sugar' or 'low fructose' fruits being one possible tool people can use regardless of the near 50% fructose or 90% carb content claims by Denise and others. AFAIC celery is oft considered a low carb food I guess because it has less percentage of carbs per calorie than durian..its also hardly sweeter and even though a durian has less sugar by this same analysis than a berry - through experience one can certainly label it as 'more sugary'. Also people have been breeding fruit for as long as we have been slightly civil, a fruit that grows on its own in the woods or jungle is not by any degree a fruit of our ancestors.
---
basically as RVAF eaters...people should already be aware of the different internal bacterias, fungus, molds and gasses on health
the main issue that people rarely have a grasp of has to to with gases that are produced as a by-product when certain food materials are digested by naturally occurring bacteria in the large intestine, or colon. These bacteria are responsible for digesting both sugar and cellulose and other fibrous material which are not normally digested in the upper gastrointestinal tract.
The sugars that cause gasses are raffinose, lactose, fructose, and sorbitol. fats and proteins rarely cause gasses or feed fungus.
With the latter two being common in fruits. The unfortunate reality the fresh
raw and fiber rich sugars can often be more problematic then refined carbs, and certainly a greater possibility in people with disrupted terrains. The goal is to have a positive terrain of bacteria. Even in the normal natural reaction this gas is created and loose fermented sugars will be attacked by friendly bacteria which can lead to less of such and overgrowth of unfriendly or "pathogenic" bacteria and fungus.
so virtually all carbs cause breakdown to gasses naturally and one can weigh the consequences or not for the truly healthy ancestor but this often has a much more disturbing breakdown and consequence for peoples at wide varieties of internal terrain and from experience the fructose or 'wild' thing plays at least a minor part in that when viewed from this perspective.
Topic: Do you have problems eating fruit? I did, but not any more... (Read 19262 times)