Fruitarianism ♥

[Lucky 1]

Sigh.......

Sapphirez.....I'm sorry but just about everything you just posted is factually wrong.

We are absolutely omnivores...this is accepted scientific fact....not my opinion.

We have the teeth and digestive system of an omnivore.

We have canine teeth and like every animal on this planet with canine teeth we are adapted to consume animal protein.

Our gut produces large amounts of powerful acids for digesting meat and animal products.

We have the relatively short gut of an omnivore.

What we do not have is the large flat teeth of a herbivore.

what we do not have is a large multi chambered stomach of a herbivore.

What we do not have is the ability to produce the digestive enzyme, cellulace which every single herbivore on this planet has!

Cellulace is required for digesting a herbivorous diet....we don't make it!
We can't make it because we don't have the metabolic equipment to do so.

I'm sorry but your whole premise on this thread is what my grandmother would call "a bunch of bunk"!

And yes....I consider vegansim to be just another fad diet......one with known health risks.

[Sapphirez]

Originally Posted by Gem

What are the toxins and what damage do they do?

the toxins are generally acids. but of course it gets more detailed than that. one thing I just learned that is interesting I just discovered while looking into something when replying to Lucky1. I think you may be intrigued about the path it took me on because it offers insight into another question you posed near the end of your reply, about calories. anyways more about that later. so one toxic byproduct created from meat consumption is trimethylene oxide and maybe I should have brought that up in my post to Lucky1 and not you, but I guess I don't think it is that important and am more excited to learn what else I did in that article, about how the body converts fiber into short chain fatty acids, which the body can also convert into long chain fatty acids, though I cannot say I know at this time if it can convert those same converted scfas into lcfas or if it can only convert scfas into lcfas if they are introduced in their scfa state originally with whatever foods contain them intact rather than converting chains from converted chains. hopefully you know what I mean lol


anyways, to elaborate about your question, fruit has a higher fructose content than other foods, though it does have some glucose. but foods that have more glucose tax the body by requiring it to initiate the krebs cycle and spike blood sugar and use insulin which is unnecessary expenditure of energy for the body when fructose gets absorbed by the body by diffusion which bypasses the whole krebs cycle insulin creation insanity.
I've found something else interesting,

"In the reactions of glycolysis, the six-carbon glucose is initially phosphorylated – that is, it has a phosphate group appended to it. The resulting molecule is a phosphorylated form of fructose (fruit sugar)."
https://sciencing.com/krebs-cycle-ma...y-5754544.html

so is that true saying the body has to convert glucose into fructose? I'm not sure and I have more things to address from your post so I will leave that to you to look into for now if you want, but this is the kind of information I hope to understand more about.

so glucose is an inferior sugar compared to fructose, but it isn't the main problem. complex carbohydrates with high starch content are much more offensive, and then high complex proteins also. the body has to work overtime to break these down into usable components, and excessive amounts of sugars are released with starchy foods. If you want me to elaborate about that I will try to break down the science of it, but basically when the body has to work harder it creates acidity which must then be disposed of and this cycle can only easily occur so many times before the body suffers wear and tear and does so less and less efficiently. then when the lymphatic system is backed up, the built up acids create hard tissue like cysts and tumors and other obstructions. this is only dire when there is no cessation of the onslaught or mainstream physicians and experts are brought into the equation and recommend highly acidic or invasive violent 'treatments'
otherwise the body just needs a bit of tlc and a vacation with the nourishment that causes it the least distress.


Another matter is when the body isn't populated with the bacteria, microbes and enzymes etc necessary to break down food matter, especially complex carbohydrates and proteins. a lot of raw foods have prebiotics, probiotics and protease which help feed and create more beneficial bacteria and break down complex structures. then there's also the issue of undesirable populations of bacteria and other microbes invading the body to clean up after the toxic food byproducts.

Proteins are an interesting subject that I must learn more about. and the body has different kinds of proteins that can be good and bad. We are basically protein though of course we are much more than that. but as far as us consuming other proteins that are long complex chains of amino acids, this is just a lot of work for the body to do. it has to break those down into the individual amino acids and then uses those to build new completely different proteins. and when you cook proteins they undergo chemical changes, coagulation being the main unfortunate one.

I used the word globulate or something earlier which if you look up globule it makes sense, but anyways coagulate is the proper term I guess. and carbohydrates gelatinize and caramelize when cooked, and enzymes and other sensitive phytonutrients are harmed in the cooking process of either. cooking generally mutates and creates carcinogens and free radicals. antioxidants which are needed to counteract resulting free radicals etc are damaged by cooking and improper processing of foods. cooking food can free nutrients in some ways, but then you have to wonder how good can damaged nutrients be, and how much excess vitamins and minerals must be used to heal the body from the subsequent damage of the consumption of the cooked foods to begin with?


Protein digestion involves the intestines and pancreas and other organs and hormones and is just an unnecessary mess that can be avoided by eating foods with more easily bioavailable amino acids so the body doesn't have to go through all the trouble of breaking complex proteins down.

As for fats, lipid peroxidation is the main threat of cooking those. I can't claim to know everything this study discusses but it seems pretty apparent to not be a good thing. these are some of the toxic compounds I am talking about being detrimental byproducts of certain food consumption

"Due to lipid peroxidation, a number of compounds are formed, for example, alkanes, malanoaldehyde, and isoprotanes. These compounds are used as markers in lipid peroxidation assay and have been verified in many diseases such as neurogenerative diseases, ischemic reperfusion injury, and diabetes."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249911/

Calories is the fundamental consideration for food because calories mean the energy supplied to, and expended by, the body. Macronutrients (protein fat and carbs), are the next most important because these determine the nutrient distribution of the calorie intake. The micronutients are next which covers the 'colours' of fruit and veges. Then meal timing is considered to distribute nutrients throughout the day, and lastly, only once all the above has been established, should supplements be considered.

I don't think that you would argue a person eating a 5,000 calorie meal of a well done burger fried in lard on a white bread bun with a side of french fries and cheese curds smothered in high fructose corn syrup ketchup and ranch dressing with artificial flavors is superior to eating a 100 or 200 calorie fresh vegetable or fruit salad. So shouldn't that end the argument about calories purely and simply? Fruits do tend to have more calories than vegetables though right? well one thing that I learned which I mentioned at the beginning of my post, is that fiber can turn into fatty acids! which this article suggests creates higher calorie consumption than we're led to believe, and uses celery as an example

https://profgrant.com/2013/08/13/hum...iber-into-fat/


but for the record, most people who suggest a high fruit diet recommend eating a lot of calories of it. along with tender leafy greens. many promote addition of seeds and nuts, which I do too, but not to that great of a degree and in minimal amounts if any when trying to detoxify in the quickest amount of time. grains are included allowable in fruitarian diet too but most of the good grains or better grains in my opinion are actually seeds anyways ie quinoa and buckwheat. I maybe should've mentioned this earlier but there are complete protein plants, apparently even including broccoli. which cruciferous vegetables are another matter, but I just wanted to point out that some plants have all necessary amino acids, though they are not terribly complex proteins like the ones we commonly think of. Moringa leaves are another example of complete protein plant food. which is healthier than broccoli because the sulfur content of cruciferous vegetables and such apparently suppresses symptoms, which is why mainstream medicine uses some sulfur based drugs. eating the vegetables is obviously not comparable to taking those ridiculous drugs, but sulfur in excess is not the body's best friend either way.

Proteins are are chains of amino acids, and we need protein. There is a very serious problem if you don't get enough of it in your diet.

We don't need protein and can't use it in that form. We can create protein from amino acids, and must to function as a human or living being, but we cannot do that unless we get spare amino acids or work diligently to break them free from their complex protein cages. so no the body does not need protein and problems only arise if you do not get enough amino acids. problems do arise if you get too much protein which the body cannot sufficiently break down into its amino acid components which is what it must do in all cases or else it becomes waste and toxic buildup. thus defeating the purpose of eating food

Animal product sourced nutrients are absorbed by the human body extraordinarily well (not that I'm advocating animal products - just stating facts).

dead tissue is acidifying and you have the complex protein issue as illustrated above so it is not easily absorbed by the body, and of course the cooking methods also determine how digestion and assimilation or detoxification occur. also dead animal tissue has cortisol and other steroidal components so a lot of people think they are getting energy when it is just an adrenaline rush which exerts the body's adrenal glands and kidneys resulting in less energy, not more. which then stifles the body's ability to digest and assimilate and regenerate and so on.

Well, everything you eat, no matter what it is, creates metabolic waste which the body is perfectly equipped to dispose of, and there positive and negative aspects of all types of food. The foods you advocate have negative aspects, but the positive aspects are far greater, so these foods are 'good for you'.

even the metabolic waste of some foods can actually be beneficial and end up feeding good bacteria or converting into something else.

It is also important to prioritise calories and nutrients because these are critical. Insufficiencies or excesses of these lead to horrendous harm. This is far more critical that how magnetic or conductive a food is. Once the nutrient profile has been established, then it's fine to entertain electromagnetism provided it doesn't compromise your healthy nutrition.

The body is electromagnetic so I think the concept is far more important than you realize or give it credit for. It isn't that I'm against nutrients, one of the reasons I am so for fruits is because they are highly nutritious of course. but they are also very detoxifying and regenerating which frees the body up to be able to digest and assimilate and utilize nutrients and everything better. If your machine is not working properly then it doesn't matter what you try to process through it because it won't be able to do what it is supposed to do. and the more inferior foods you bog it down with, the less its cog and wheels and whatnot will function as they're supposed to. If your chemicals are contaminated with things that denature them or rob them of their inherent properties, then chemistry won't commence as it is supposed to.and then what is the result?

[Sapphirez]

Originally Posted by Lucky 1

Sigh.......

Sapphirez.....I'm sorry but just about everything you just posted is factually wrong.

We are absolutely omnivores...this is accepted scientific fact....not my opinion.

We have the teeth and digestive system of an omnivore. We have canine teeth and like every animal on this planet with canine teeth we are adapted to consume animal protein.

I think that if you go tell a bear, or weasel, or wild cat that you have the same teeth as it you'll find its open-mouth laughter is a bit more frightening than that of your flat toothed mouth. Our teeth look nothing like theirs and our eye teeth are purely for breaking down other plant foods matter, not dead or live animal tissue which their teeth are made for doing. If you actually believe that you're seeing a similar scenario when comparing your teeth to a typical omnivore or carnivore's then wow... You don't actually think they are the same do you? do we really need to get out a ruler? how much longer are their canine teeth in comparison to their other teeth and what is the ratio of your canine teeth compared to your other teeth? come on this is just silly. but unlike carnivores and most omnivores we actually have to chew our food to digest it properly where most of them can just swallow it whole after little or no chewing.

Our gut produces large amounts of powerful acids for digesting meat and animal products.

Actually carnivores and omnivores typically have a ph of 1 or less when food is in the stomach and we have a ph of 4-5. there is a quadruple or quintuple difference there. and our saliva is alkaline while theirs is acidic. Our colon is alkaline while theirs is acidic. Our urine is alkaline while theirs is acidic. This is stuff you can easily look up and learn if you are actually trying to learn anything but it seems you aren't?

Most of what you state below is you saying we are not herbivores and the title of this thread is Fruitarianism so there isn't a point to you telling me we are not that close to herbivores. but we are closer to herbivores than omnivores. We are closest to frugivores.

We have the relatively short gut of an omnivore.

Our intestines is about 9 times the length of our body, which is what other frugivores have also. Herbivores have about 20 times the length, and carnivores and omnivores have only 1.5-3 times the length. so as I've said we are not herbivores but their intestines are about double as long as ours while ours are triple that of omnivores and sextuple that of carnivores. and almost the exact same ratio as other frugivores

What we do not have is the large flat teeth of a herbivore.

what we do not have is a large multi chambered stomach of a herbivore.

What we do not have is the ability to produce the digestive enzyme, cellulace which every single herbivore on this planet has!

yeah we're not herbivores. I said we are frugivores. have you looked up frugivore species and compared us to them? that is what I was trying to do and you ignored everything I said about that and started talking about how we're not herbivores.. If we are going to discuss a topic then we have to stay on that topic and if you are going to reply to me please reply to what I actually say instead of going off on tangents about things that aren't relevant or accusing me of being full of it when you aren't even addressing or apparently understanding what I am saying or sharing information-wise. I am sorry but this is just weird. you completely disregarded my post and the actual facts in it

[Lucky 1]

[quote=Sapphirez]I think that if you go tell a bear, or weasel, or wild cat that you have the same teeth as it you'll find its open-mouth laughter is a bit more frightening than that of your flat toothed mouth. Our teeth look nothing like theirs

Weasels and cats are carnivores.......Bears are an omnivore just like us and our teeth are more like a bears then you probably know.......flat molars in the back for grinding plants.....canines and chisel like front teeth for biting stuff off....just like ours!

Same with a pig or chimpanzee....also omnivores

And no...human beings are not frugivores and at no time in our evolutionary history have we ever been.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Sapphirez

I think that if you go tell a bear, or weasel, or wild cat that you have the same teeth as it you'll find its open-mouth laughter is a bit more frightening than that of your flat toothed mouth. Our teeth look nothing like theirs and our eye teeth are purely for breaking down other plant foods matter, not dead or live animal tissue which their teeth are made for doing. If you actually believe that you're seeing a similar scenario when comparing your teeth to a typical omnivore or carnivore's then wow... You don't actually think they are the same do you? do we really need to get out a ruler? how much longer are their canine teeth in comparison to their other teeth and what is the ratio of your canine teeth compared to your other teeth? come on this is just silly. but unlike carnivores and most omnivores we actually have to chew our food to digest it properly where most of them can just swallow it whole after little or no chewing.




Actually carnivores and omnivores typically have a ph of 1 or less when food is in the stomach and we have a ph of 4-5. there is a quadruple or quintuple difference there. and our saliva is alkaline while theirs is acidic. Our colon is alkaline while theirs is acidic. Our urine is alkaline while theirs is acidic. This is stuff you can easily look up and learn if you are actually trying to learn anything but it seems you aren't?

Most of what you state below is you saying we are not herbivores and the title of this thread is Fruitarianism so there isn't a point to you telling me we are not that close to herbivores. but we are closer to herbivores than omnivores. We are closest to frugivores.



Our intestines is about 9 times the length of our body, which is what other frugivores have also. Herbivores have about 20 times the length, and carnivores and omnivores have only 1.5-3 times the length. so as I've said we are not herbivores but their intestines are about double as long as ours while ours are triple that of omnivores and sextuple that of carnivores. and almost the exact same ratio as other frugivores


yeah we're not herbivores. I said we are frugivores. have you looked up frugivore species and compared us to them? that is what I was trying to do and you ignored everything I said about that and started talking about how we're not herbivores.. If we are going to discuss a topic then we have to stay on that topic and if you are going to reply to me please reply to what I actually say instead of going off on tangents about things that aren't relevant or accusing me of being full of it when you aren't even addressing or apparently understanding what I am saying or sharing information-wise. I am sorry but this is just weird. you completely disregarded my post and the actual facts in it

I don't think any mammals are frugivores.

[Gem]

[quote=Lucky 1]

Originally Posted by Sapphirez

I think that if you go tell a bear, or weasel, or wild cat that you have the same teeth as it you'll find its open-mouth laughter is a bit more frightening than that of your flat toothed mouth. Our teeth look nothing like theirs

Weasels and cats are carnivores.......Bears are an omnivore just like us and our teeth are more like a bears then you probably know.......flat molars in the back for grinding plants.....canines and chisel like front teeth for biting stuff off....just like ours!

Same with a pig or chimpanzee....also omnivores

And no...human beings are not frugivores and at no time in our evolutionary history have we ever been.

Primates are omnivores and humans are primates. Case closed.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Sapphirez

the toxins are generally acids. but of course it gets more detailed than that. one thing I just learned that is interesting I just discovered while looking into something when replying to Lucky1. I think you may be intrigued about the path it took me on because it offers insight into another question you posed near the end of your reply, about calories. anyways more about that later. so one toxic byproduct created from meat consumption is trimethylene oxide and maybe I should have brought that up in my post to Lucky1 and not you, but I guess I don't think it is that important and am more excited to learn what else I did in that article, about how the body converts fiber into short chain fatty acids, which the body can also convert into long chain fatty acids, though I cannot say I know at this time if it can convert those same converted scfas into lcfas or if it can only convert scfas into lcfas if they are introduced in their scfa state originally with whatever foods contain them intact rather than converting chains from converted chains. hopefully you know what I mean lol


anyways, to elaborate about your question, fruit has a higher fructose content than other foods, though it does have some glucose. but foods that have more glucose tax the body by requiring it to initiate the krebs cycle and spike blood sugar and use insulin which is unnecessary expenditure of energy for the body when fructose gets absorbed by the body by diffusion which bypasses the whole krebs cycle insulin creation insanity.
I've found something else interesting,

"In the reactions of glycolysis, the six-carbon glucose is initially phosphorylated – that is, it has a phosphate group appended to it. The resulting molecule is a phosphorylated form of fructose (fruit sugar)."
https://sciencing.com/krebs-cycle-ma...y-5754544.html

so is that true saying the body has to convert glucose into fructose? I'm not sure and I have more things to address from your post so I will leave that to you to look into for now if you want, but this is the kind of information I hope to understand more about.

so glucose is an inferior sugar compared to fructose, but it isn't the main problem. complex carbohydrates with high starch content are much more offensive, and then high complex proteins also. the body has to work overtime to break these down into usable components, and excessive amounts of sugars are released with starchy foods. If you want me to elaborate about that I will try to break down the science of it, but basically when the body has to work harder it creates acidity which must then be disposed of and this cycle can only easily occur so many times before the body suffers wear and tear and does so less and less efficiently. then when the lymphatic system is backed up, the built up acids create hard tissue like cysts and tumors and other obstructions. this is only dire when there is no cessation of the onslaught or mainstream physicians and experts are brought into the equation and recommend highly acidic or invasive violent 'treatments'
otherwise the body just needs a bit of tlc and a vacation with the nourishment that causes it the least distress.


Another matter is when the body isn't populated with the bacteria, microbes and enzymes etc necessary to break down food matter, especially complex carbohydrates and proteins. a lot of raw foods have prebiotics, probiotics and protease which help feed and create more beneficial bacteria and break down complex structures. then there's also the issue of undesirable populations of bacteria and other microbes invading the body to clean up after the toxic food byproducts.

Proteins are an interesting subject that I must learn more about. and the body has different kinds of proteins that can be good and bad. We are basically protein though of course we are much more than that. but as far as us consuming other proteins that are long complex chains of amino acids, this is just a lot of work for the body to do. it has to break those down into the individual amino acids and then uses those to build new completely different proteins. and when you cook proteins they undergo chemical changes, coagulation being the main unfortunate one.

I used the word globulate or something earlier which if you look up globule it makes sense, but anyways coagulate is the proper term I guess. and carbohydrates gelatinize and caramelize when cooked, and enzymes and other sensitive phytonutrients are harmed in the cooking process of either. cooking generally mutates and creates carcinogens and free radicals. antioxidants which are needed to counteract resulting free radicals etc are damaged by cooking and improper processing of foods. cooking food can free nutrients in some ways, but then you have to wonder how good can damaged nutrients be, and how much excess vitamins and minerals must be used to heal the body from the subsequent damage of the consumption of the cooked foods to begin with?


Protein digestion involves the intestines and pancreas and other organs and hormones and is just an unnecessary mess that can be avoided by eating foods with more easily bioavailable amino acids so the body doesn't have to go through all the trouble of breaking complex proteins down.

As for fats, lipid peroxidation is the main threat of cooking those. I can't claim to know everything this study discusses but it seems pretty apparent to not be a good thing. these are some of the toxic compounds I am talking about being detrimental byproducts of certain food consumption

"Due to lipid peroxidation, a number of compounds are formed, for example, alkanes, malanoaldehyde, and isoprotanes. These compounds are used as markers in lipid peroxidation assay and have been verified in many diseases such as neurogenerative diseases, ischemic reperfusion injury, and diabetes."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249911/



I don't think that you would argue a person eating a 5,000 calorie meal of a well done burger fried in lard on a white bread bun with a side of french fries and cheese curds smothered in high fructose corn syrup ketchup and ranch dressing with artificial flavors is superior to eating a 100 or 200 calorie fresh vegetable or fruit salad. So shouldn't that end the argument about calories purely and simply? Fruits do tend to have more calories than vegetables though right? well one thing that I learned which I mentioned at the beginning of my post, is that fiber can turn into fatty acids! which this article suggests creates higher calorie consumption than we're led to believe, and uses celery as an example

https://profgrant.com/2013/08/13/hum...iber-into-fat/


but for the record, most people who suggest a high fruit diet recommend eating a lot of calories of it. along with tender leafy greens. many promote addition of seeds and nuts, which I do too, but not to that great of a degree and in minimal amounts if any when trying to detoxify in the quickest amount of time. grains are included allowable in fruitarian diet too but most of the good grains or better grains in my opinion are actually seeds anyways ie quinoa and buckwheat. I maybe should've mentioned this earlier but there are complete protein plants, apparently even including broccoli. which cruciferous vegetables are another matter, but I just wanted to point out that some plants have all necessary amino acids, though they are not terribly complex proteins like the ones we commonly think of. Moringa leaves are another example of complete protein plant food. which is healthier than broccoli because the sulfur content of cruciferous vegetables and such apparently suppresses symptoms, which is why mainstream medicine uses some sulfur based drugs. eating the vegetables is obviously not comparable to taking those ridiculous drugs, but sulfur in excess is not the body's best friend either way.





We don't need protein and can't use it in that form. We can create protein from amino acids, and must to function as a human or living being, but we cannot do that unless we get spare amino acids or work diligently to break them free from their complex protein cages. so no the body does not need protein and problems only arise if you do not get enough amino acids. problems do arise if you get too much protein which the body cannot sufficiently break down into its amino acid components which is what it must do in all cases or else it becomes waste and toxic buildup. thus defeating the purpose of eating food




dead tissue is acidifying and you have the complex protein issue as illustrated above so it is not easily absorbed by the body, and of course the cooking methods also determine how digestion and assimilation or detoxification occur. also dead animal tissue has cortisol and other steroidal components so a lot of people think they are getting energy when it is just an adrenaline rush which exerts the body's adrenal glands and kidneys resulting in less energy, not more. which then stifles the body's ability to digest and assimilate and regenerate and so on.




even the metabolic waste of some foods can actually be beneficial and end up feeding good bacteria or converting into something else.



The body is electromagnetic so I think the concept is far more important than you realize or give it credit for. It isn't that I'm against nutrients, one of the reasons I am so for fruits is because they are highly nutritious of course. but they are also very detoxifying and regenerating which frees the body up to be able to digest and assimilate and utilize nutrients and everything better. If your machine is not working properly then it doesn't matter what you try to process through it because it won't be able to do what it is supposed to do. and the more inferior foods you bog it down with, the less its cog and wheels and whatnot will function as they're supposed to. If your chemicals are contaminated with things that denature them or rob them of their inherent properties, then chemistry won't commence as it is supposed to.and then what is the result?

Lets start with calories (energy) because calories are foundation for diet. The body both takes in calories from food, and it expends calories as energy to function. This means calories are imagined as a 'calorie balance' - I.e. calories in vs calories out. If more calories go in than out, the body becomes heavier; and if less calories go in than out, then the body becomes lighter. The body can gain or lose tissue mainly as skeletal muscle or fat (adipose tissue).


The next step is the macronutrient distribution. Just about all calories are contained in the macronutrients: protein, fat and carbohydrates. You need protein. It is critical and the most important macronutrient. Dietary fat is also essentially important, and carbs are important, but not essential (though it is almost impossible to have a zero carb diet). The protein is a constant and you need quite a lot of it. This alone completely undermines furgarianism, because fruit is not rich in protein, has practically zero fat (exceptions include avos and olives) and is very high in carbohydrates. You can see by this how fruit generally does not provide the human body with the essential macronutrients, but is high in unessential carbs. It is obvious, therefore, in terms of human macronutrient requirements, that frugarianism is not a good human diet.



After the macronutrient distribution of calories has been established, we consider micronutrients (vitamins and minerals). Fruit generally falls into this category because it is jam packed with micronutrients, as well as fresh veg, but the carbs in such fruit have to be included in macronutrients (which make up calories).


Once the complete macronutrient/micronutrient profile is established, we consider meal frequency, which is how all these nutrients are distributed throughout the day according to the convenience of any given individual.


When all that is in place, and only then, do we consider supplements which could make up any shortfalls due to veganism, allergy and food intolerance, or just convenience in busy lifestyles.


There are two things you can see clearly from the above: 1) a fruit diet makes no sense at all within human macronutrient requirements and; 2) Unless the steps above are followed, you cannot hope to have a healthy diet.


My suggestion is, learn about food nutrients, and get your protein sorted out first. I suggest at least 0.5g of protein per pound of bodyweight if you are reasonably lean. You can't get enough protein from fruit, but you can get it from vegan sources. Then get enough fat at around about 60g of the stuff a day as a minimum for an adult. Once these are in place you will know how much carbs you need to make up the remainder of your calorie intake requirements. You can make up these carbs quite easily with fruits if you prefer, but because vegan protein sources tend to be high in carbs as well, you might find it isn't possible to consume a lot of fruit on a vegan diet and also maintain a healthy macronutrient balance.



Do you see what I mean? I hope so, because this is how it works.

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by Sapphirez

the toxins are generally acids. but of course it gets more detailed than that. one thing I just learned that is interesting I just discovered while looking into something when replying to Lucky1. I think you may be intrigued about the path it took me on because it offers insight into another question you posed near the end of your reply, about calories. anyways more about that later. so one toxic byproduct created from meat consumption is trimethylene oxide and maybe I should have brought that up in my post to Lucky1 and not you, but I guess I don't think it is that important and am more excited to learn what else I did in that article, about how the body converts fiber into short chain fatty acids, which the body can also convert into long chain fatty acids, though I cannot say I know at this time if it can convert those same converted scfas into lcfas or if it can only convert scfas into lcfas if they are introduced in their scfa state originally with whatever foods contain them intact rather than converting chains from converted chains. hopefully you know what I mean lol


anyways, to elaborate about your question, fruit has a higher fructose content than other foods, though it does have some glucose. but foods that have more glucose tax the body by requiring it to initiate the krebs cycle and spike blood sugar and use insulin which is unnecessary expenditure of energy for the body when fructose gets absorbed by the body by diffusion which bypasses the whole krebs cycle insulin creation insanity.
I've found something else interesting,

"In the reactions of glycolysis, the six-carbon glucose is initially phosphorylated – that is, it has a phosphate group appended to it. The resulting molecule is a phosphorylated form of fructose (fruit sugar)."
https://sciencing.com/krebs-cycle-ma...y-5754544.html

so is that true saying the body has to convert glucose into fructose? I'm not sure and I have more things to address from your post so I will leave that to you to look into for now if you want, but this is the kind of information I hope to understand more about.

so glucose is an inferior sugar compared to fructose, but it isn't the main problem. complex carbohydrates with high starch content are much more offensive, and then high complex proteins also. the body has to work overtime to break these down into usable components, and excessive amounts of sugars are released with starchy foods. If you want me to elaborate about that I will try to break down the science of it, but basically when the body has to work harder it creates acidity which must then be disposed of and this cycle can only easily occur so many times before the body suffers wear and tear and does so less and less efficiently. then when the lymphatic system is backed up, the built up acids create hard tissue like cysts and tumors and other obstructions. this is only dire when there is no cessation of the onslaught or mainstream physicians and experts are brought into the equation and recommend highly acidic or invasive violent 'treatments'
otherwise the body just needs a bit of tlc and a vacation with the nourishment that causes it the least distress.


Another matter is when the body isn't populated with the bacteria, microbes and enzymes etc necessary to break down food matter, especially complex carbohydrates and proteins. a lot of raw foods have prebiotics, probiotics and protease which help feed and create more beneficial bacteria and break down complex structures. then there's also the issue of undesirable populations of bacteria and other microbes invading the body to clean up after the toxic food byproducts.

Proteins are an interesting subject that I must learn more about. and the body has different kinds of proteins that can be good and bad. We are basically protein though of course we are much more than that. but as far as us consuming other proteins that are long complex chains of amino acids, this is just a lot of work for the body to do. it has to break those down into the individual amino acids and then uses those to build new completely different proteins. and when you cook proteins they undergo chemical changes, coagulation being the main unfortunate one.

I used the word globulate or something earlier which if you look up globule it makes sense, but anyways coagulate is the proper term I guess. and carbohydrates gelatinize and caramelize when cooked, and enzymes and other sensitive phytonutrients are harmed in the cooking process of either. cooking generally mutates and creates carcinogens and free radicals. antioxidants which are needed to counteract resulting free radicals etc are damaged by cooking and improper processing of foods. cooking food can free nutrients in some ways, but then you have to wonder how good can damaged nutrients be, and how much excess vitamins and minerals must be used to heal the body from the subsequent damage of the consumption of the cooked foods to begin with?


Protein digestion involves the intestines and pancreas and other organs and hormones and is just an unnecessary mess that can be avoided by eating foods with more easily bioavailable amino acids so the body doesn't have to go through all the trouble of breaking complex proteins down.

As for fats, lipid peroxidation is the main threat of cooking those. I can't claim to know everything this study discusses but it seems pretty apparent to not be a good thing. these are some of the toxic compounds I am talking about being detrimental byproducts of certain food consumption

"Due to lipid peroxidation, a number of compounds are formed, for example, alkanes, malanoaldehyde, and isoprotanes. These compounds are used as markers in lipid peroxidation assay and have been verified in many diseases such as neurogenerative diseases, ischemic reperfusion injury, and diabetes."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249911/



I don't think that you would argue a person eating a 5,000 calorie meal of a well done burger fried in lard on a white bread bun with a side of french fries and cheese curds smothered in high fructose corn syrup ketchup and ranch dressing with artificial flavors is superior to eating a 100 or 200 calorie fresh vegetable or fruit salad. So shouldn't that end the argument about calories purely and simply? Fruits do tend to have more calories than vegetables though right? well one thing that I learned which I mentioned at the beginning of my post, is that fiber can turn into fatty acids! which this article suggests creates higher calorie consumption than we're led to believe, and uses celery as an example

https://profgrant.com/2013/08/13/hum...iber-into-fat/


but for the record, most people who suggest a high fruit diet recommend eating a lot of calories of it. along with tender leafy greens. many promote addition of seeds and nuts, which I do too, but not to that great of a degree and in minimal amounts if any when trying to detoxify in the quickest amount of time. grains are included allowable in fruitarian diet too but most of the good grains or better grains in my opinion are actually seeds anyways ie quinoa and buckwheat. I maybe should've mentioned this earlier but there are complete protein plants, apparently even including broccoli. which cruciferous vegetables are another matter, but I just wanted to point out that some plants have all necessary amino acids, though they are not terribly complex proteins like the ones we commonly think of. Moringa leaves are another example of complete protein plant food. which is healthier than broccoli because the sulfur content of cruciferous vegetables and such apparently suppresses symptoms, which is why mainstream medicine uses some sulfur based drugs. eating the vegetables is obviously not comparable to taking those ridiculous drugs, but sulfur in excess is not the body's best friend either way.





We don't need protein and can't use it in that form. We can create protein from amino acids, and must to function as a human or living being, but we cannot do that unless we get spare amino acids or work diligently to break them free from their complex protein cages. so no the body does not need protein and problems only arise if you do not get enough amino acids. problems do arise if you get too much protein which the body cannot sufficiently break down into its amino acid components which is what it must do in all cases or else it becomes waste and toxic buildup. thus defeating the purpose of eating food




dead tissue is acidifying and you have the complex protein issue as illustrated above so it is not easily absorbed by the body, and of course the cooking methods also determine how digestion and assimilation or detoxification occur. also dead animal tissue has cortisol and other steroidal components so a lot of people think they are getting energy when it is just an adrenaline rush which exerts the body's adrenal glands and kidneys resulting in less energy, not more. which then stifles the body's ability to digest and assimilate and regenerate and so on.




even the metabolic waste of some foods can actually be beneficial and end up feeding good bacteria or converting into something else.



The body is electromagnetic so I think the concept is far more important than you realize or give it credit for. It isn't that I'm against nutrients, one of the reasons I am so for fruits is because they are highly nutritious of course. but they are also very detoxifying and regenerating which frees the body up to be able to digest and assimilate and utilize nutrients and everything better. If your machine is not working properly then it doesn't matter what you try to process through it because it won't be able to do what it is supposed to do. and the more inferior foods you bog it down with, the less its cog and wheels and whatnot will function as they're supposed to. If your chemicals are contaminated with things that denature them or rob them of their inherent properties, then chemistry won't commence as it is supposed to.and then what is the result?

Knowledge is a wonderful thing, but if your so caught up in it and not listening to your bodies needs, in all that, you miss your natural intuitive capabilities that your body knows is right for you. We are part of nature and what nature provides where and what is available to you, seems to me more appropriate to a balanced approach. Any extreme way of eating, like fruitarian, may be what you need right now nothing we are and do needs to be permanent. If your listening to your body, this conversation and curiosity about eating this way, could have already detoxed your body by doing it for the time frame it most likely was seeking it. Our body is an intricate balanced machine, that has specific balanced needs. What you are right now, as your body is, requires what you need for you. We are part of nature and as I see it, there are times where our body could well benefit from fruit alone. Not necessarily as a permenenant thing, but as long as your listening to it’s need as one with its changing needs.

We are what we eat/We eat what we are.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Sapphirez

the toxins are generally acids. but of course it gets more detailed than that. one thing I just learned that is interesting I just discovered while looking into something when replying to Lucky1. I think you may be intrigued about the path it took me on because it offers insight into another question you posed near the end of your reply, about calories. anyways more about that later. so one toxic byproduct created from meat consumption is trimethylene oxide and maybe I should have brought that up in my post to Lucky1 and not you, but I guess I don't think it is that important and am more excited to learn what else I did in that article, about how the body converts fiber into short chain fatty acids, which the body can also convert into long chain fatty acids, though I cannot say I know at this time if it can convert those same converted scfas into lcfas or if it can only convert scfas into lcfas if they are introduced in their scfa state originally with whatever foods contain them intact rather than converting chains from converted chains. hopefully you know what I mean lol


anyways, to elaborate about your question, fruit has a higher fructose content than other foods, though it does have some glucose. but foods that have more glucose tax the body by requiring it to initiate the krebs cycle and spike blood sugar and use insulin which is unnecessary expenditure of energy for the body when fructose gets absorbed by the body by diffusion which bypasses the whole krebs cycle insulin creation insanity.

The krebs cycle is basically how we describe the aerobic energy system, and it is ludicrous to suggest that it taxes the body.

I've found something else interesting,

"In the reactions of glycolysis, the six-carbon glucose is initially phosphorylated – that is, it has a phosphate group appended to it. The resulting molecule is a phosphorylated form of fructose (fruit sugar)."
https://sciencing.com/krebs-cycle-ma...y-5754544.html

so is that true saying the body has to convert glucose into fructose? I'm not sure and I have more things to address from your post so I will leave that to you to look into for now if you want, but this is the kind of information I hope to understand more about.

No that's not true. The metabolic pathways of glucose and fructose are different, and an aversion to glucose is irrational. Suffice to say, the combination of glucose and fructose generally found in fruit is what the bdy wants in terms of sugars.

so glucose is an inferior sugar compared to fructose

Simply not true.

but it isn't the main problem. complex carbohydrates with high starch content are much more offensive, and then high complex proteins also. the body has to work overtime to break these down into usable components, and excessive amounts of sugars are released with starchy foods.

Not true.

If you want me to elaborate about that I will try to break down the science of it, but basically when the body has to work harder it creates acidity which must then be disposed of and this cycle can only easily occur so many times before the body suffers wear and tear and does so less and less efficiently.

The body has to remove metaboic waste which can be acidic, alkalyne or neutral waste products.

then when the lymphatic system is backed up, the built up acids create hard tissue like cysts and tumors and other obstructions. this is only dire when there is no cessation of the onslaught or mainstream physicians and experts are brought into the equation and recommend highly acidic or invasive violent 'treatments'
otherwise the body just needs a bit of tlc and a vacation with the nourishment that causes it the least distress.

Many maladies can be prevented or cured through healthy nutrition.


[quote]Another matter is when the body isn't populated with the bacteria, microbes and enzymes etc necessary to break down food matter, especially complex carbohydrates and proteins. a lot of raw foods have prebiotics, probiotics and protease which help feed and create more beneficial bacteria and break down complex structures. then there's also the issue of undesirable populations of bacteria and other microbes invading the body to clean up after the toxic food byproducts.

Proteins are an interesting subject that I must learn more about. and the body has different kinds of proteins that can be good and bad. We are basically protein though of course we are much more than that. but as far as us consuming other proteins that are long complex chains of amino acids, this is just a lot of work for the body to do.

Protein chains are broken into amino acids by the chemical reactions in the digestive tract (mainly the stomach). The amino acids are absorbed into the blood in the small intestine. An aversion to protein, suggesting protein is somehow harmful, is simply not rational.

it has to break those down into the individual amino acids and then uses those to build new completely different proteins. and when you cook proteins they undergo chemical changes, coagulation being the main unfortunate one.

It basically makes proteins easier to digest.

I used the word globulate or something earlier which if you look up globule it makes sense, but anyways coagulate is the proper term I guess. and carbohydrates gelatinize and caramelize when cooked, and enzymes and other sensitive phytonutrients are harmed in the cooking process of either. cooking generally mutates and creates carcinogens and free radicals. antioxidants which are needed to counteract resulting free radicals etc are damaged by cooking and improper processing of foods. cooking food can free nutrients in some ways, but then you have to wonder how good can damaged nutrients be, and how much excess vitamins and minerals must be used to heal the body from the subsequent damage of the consumption of the cooked foods to begin with?

It is a good idea to eat plenty of raw food like fruit, salad, nuts etc along with cooked food.

Protein digestion involves the intestines and pancreas and other organs and hormones and is just an unnecessary mess that can be avoided by eating foods with more easily bioavailable amino acids so the body doesn't have to go through all the trouble of breaking complex proteins down.

Protein is a vital, critical, essential nutrient.

As for fats, lipid peroxidation is the main threat of cooking those. I can't claim to know everything this study discusses but it seems pretty apparent to not be a good thing. these are some of the toxic compounds I am talking about being detrimental byproducts of certain food consumption

The studies I am aware of fed very large doses to rats, but humans would never ever come anywhere close to consuming even a fraction of those quantities. Still, you can get all your fat from raw food sources without any problem.


"Due to lipid peroxidation, a number of compounds are formed, for example, alkanes, malanoaldehyde, and isoprotanes. These compounds are used as markers in lipid peroxidation assay and have been verified in many diseases such as neurogenerative diseases, ischemic reperfusion injury, and diabetes."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249911/

I don't think that you would argue a person eating a 5,000 calorie meal of a well done burger fried in lard on a white bread bun with a side of french fries and cheese curds smothered in high fructose corn syrup ketchup and ranch dressing with artificial flavors is superior to eating a 100 or 200 calorie fresh vegetable or fruit salad. So shouldn't that end the argument about calories purely and simply?

If you don't get enough calories, you die. Of course it is better to get calories from a balanced distribution of protein, fat and carbohydrates, along with the proper micronutrients - all from whole food.

Fruits do tend to have more calories than vegetables though right?

Yes - higher in carbs, basically.

well one thing that I learned which I mentioned at the beginning of my post, is that fiber can turn into fatty acids! which this article suggests creates higher calorie consumption than we're led to believe, and uses celery as an example

https://profgrant.com/2013/08/13/hum...iber-into-fat/

Fibre is mostly indigestable, and can not be considered a source of fat.

but for the record, most people who suggest a high fruit diet recommend eating a lot of calories of it. along with tender leafy greens. many promote addition of seeds and nuts, which I do too, but not to that great of a degree and in minimal amounts if any when trying to detoxify in the quickest amount of time. grains are included allowable in fruitarian diet too but most of the good grains or better grains in my opinion are actually seeds anyways ie quinoa and buckwheat. I maybe should've mentioned this earlier but there are complete protein plants, apparently even including broccoli.

Brocoli is so low in protein it simply doesn't make the grade, but grains are good proteins, and they are starchy carbs. Quinoa has a complete amino acid profile as does tofu.

which cruciferous vegetables are another matter, but I just wanted to point out that some plants have all necessary amino acids, though they are not terribly complex proteins like the ones we commonly think of. Moringa leaves are another example of complete protein plant food. which is healthier than broccoli because the sulfur content of cruciferous vegetables and such apparently suppresses symptoms, which is why mainstream medicine uses some sulfur based drugs. eating the vegetables is obviously not comparable to taking those ridiculous drugs, but sulfur in excess is not the body's best friend either way.

Eat a range of healthy food, get enough protein and fat. Vege sources such nuts beans and quinoa are also rich in carbs.

We don't need protein and can't use it in that form.

Totally wrong!

We can create protein from amino acids, and must to function as a human or living being, but we cannot do that unless we get spare amino acids or work diligently to break them free from their complex protein cages. so no the body does not need protein and problems only arise if you do not get enough amino acids.

Protein is made up of amino acids. Proteins are broken into amino acids by the chemistry of the stomach and absorbed into the blood in the intestine. The body converts the amino acids into the various proteins it requires via a complicated bit of RNA chemistry called protein synthesis.

problems do arise if you get too much protein which the body cannot sufficiently break down into its amino acid components which is what it must do in all cases or else it becomes waste and toxic buildup. thus defeating the purpose of eating food

The body has problems if you feed it too much of anything. That doesn't mean we have to fear everything.

dead tissue is acidifying and you have the complex protein issue as illustrated above so it is not easily absorbed by the body.

Animal proteins are absorbed more readily by the body than plant proteins.



The is no issue with 'complex protein' at all.

and of course the cooking methods also determine how digestion and assimilation or detoxification occur. also dead animal tissue has cortisol and other steroidal components so a lot of people think they are getting energy when it is just an adrenaline rush which exerts the body's adrenal glands and kidneys resulting in less energy, not more.

Fine. Lots of people don't eat animals and vegans can get protein and other nutrients such as b vitamins in other ways.

which then stifles the body's ability to digest and assimilate and regenerate and so on.

Nope.

even the metabolic waste of some foods can actually be beneficial and end up feeding good bacteria or converting into something else.

Metabolic waste is generally peed out and breathed out.

The body is electromagnetic so I think the concept is far more important than you realize or give it credit for. It isn't that I'm against nutrients, one of the reasons I am so for fruits is because they are highly nutritious of course.

Of course.

but they are also very detoxifying and regenerating which frees the body up to be able to digest and assimilate and utilize nutrients and everything better. If your machine is not working properly then it doesn't matter what you try to process through it because it won't be able to do what it is supposed to do. and the more inferior foods you bog it down with, the less its cog and wheels and whatnot will function as they're supposed to. If your chemicals are contaminated with things that denature them or rob them of their inherent properties, then chemistry won't commence as it is supposed to.and then what is the result?

Of course, the body works best when its nutrition consists of enough calories made up of nutrient dense whole food. It doesn't work as well when it is fed junky processed crud including artificial additives.

[Philos_Tone]

Be careful, I tried that. I'm also not going to be eating meat or eggs in the future.

I support have grains and nuts.

I am consuming dairy, at the moment. I support the proler treatment of animal. We are all very serious beings.

We are all powerful beings.