"pearl" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> "erpt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news
[email protected]...
>> "pearl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "erpt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> "pearl" <[email protected]> wrote in message:
>> >
>> > --restore--
>> >> >> > > I am near-vegan. Humans *are* Frugivores.
>> >> >> > --------------------------
>> >> >> > Have you proven that to yourself? I know that if I were going to
>> >> >> > insist
>> >> >> > that humans are frugivores, I would have wanted to prove it to
>> >> >> > myself
>> >> >> > first - by living exclusively on a frugivorous diet for at least
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > few
>> >> >> > years. A diet of only
>> >> >
>> >> > sweet?
>> >>
>> >> No, I'd suggest a wide variety of acid, sub-acid and sweet fruits.
>> > --end restore--
>> >
>> >> > 'What is a "Fruit"?
>> >> >
>> >> > From Webster's Dictionary comes the following definition
>> >> > of "fruit" which is inclusive of many constituents of green
>> >> > salad: A fruit is the reproductive product of a tree or other
>> >> > plant... the edible, succulent product, generally covering
>> >> > and including the seed... or mature ovary. Essentially, fruit
>> >> > is made of two parts: the pericarp or edible flesh, and the
>> >> > seed portion itself. Notice from this botanical definition of
>> >> > fruit when considering our fruitarian character, this does
>> >> > not mean exclusively sweet fruits. To enjoy an energetic,
>> >> > youthful, disease-free life, eat a varied diet predominantly
>> >> > of foods you are biologically adapted to: raw fresh fruits,
>> >> > vegetables, nuts, seeds, sprouted grains, and perhaps
>> >> > occasional legumes and tubers.
>> >> > ..'
>> >> > http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm
>> >> -----------------------------
>> >>
>> >> Alright then, obviously you wish to use references and the botanical
>> >> definition of fruit from the article on your website - fine.
>> >
>> > At the end of this little endeavour you try to imply that you
>> > had read the article (prior to yesterday morning, that is).
>> > If you had, you would have known what the definition is.
>> -----------------------------
>>
>>
>> On your website there is the statement "...are we frugivores who can
>> thrive
>> on a diet of raw fresh bananas, grapes, apples, oranges, or melons meal
>> after meal", which implies a frugivorous diet is a strict fruit diet (as
>> some fruitarians follow). Your website also contains the wider botanical
>> definition of fruit (which some other fruitarians follow). Your website
>> also recommends foods that definitely fall outside of that common
>> botanical
>> definition of fruit (such as tubers and leafy green vegetables). So I
>> didn't (couldn't) know exactly where you stood on the matter until you
>> posted #2 - the botanical definition.
>
> So you hadn't read further than the first paragraph. Ok.
>
>> HOWEVER..... that's all moot now, because in your latest post you have
>> made
>> it clear that when you say humans are frugivores, you are using the much
>> wider definition that applies when describing (natural) animal diets, and
>> not the more strict definition humans use for their own fruitarian diets
>> (which I had wrongly assumed you were going by), which invariably fall
>> completely within the botanical definition. I have to say I'm very
>> surprised by your position on that, I really didn't think you'd want to
>> go
>> there, but we will (below)...
>
> Why are you surprised? You made reference to previous discussions
> in your very first post to this thread:
>
> '.. she has insisted numerous times in other discussions that humans
> are actually frugivores, and certainly animal products wouldn't be a
> natural part of our diet if that were true, and she certainly believes
> it's
> true. '
>
> From that it is clear that you knew perfectly well that I was referring
> to humans' natural diet and not the fruitarian diet you were on about.
------------------------------------
Not at all. Firstly, certain versions of the fruitarian diet I was
discussing could be considered (and are considered, by some of the
fruitarian-minded types), to be the early natural diet of humans. In
particular, the fruit only diet (no nuts, seeds, grains, legumes or
vegetables at all), and also the fruit, nut, and seed diet (no grains,
legumes or vegetables at all). Granted I did get into a dispute with you in
the area of "vegetable fruits" vs. other non-fruitarian vegetables, and that
lies outside of the natural diet area. But that was after you posted your
"fruit" definition, and I was still under the wrong assumption then that you
were using the strict "human" fruitarian definition which would allow
nothing outside of that definition you posted (such as the non-fruitarian
vegetables like tubers and leafy greens). If I had known then that you were
actually using the much wider natural animal diet definition of frugivore,
which allows for that, I certainly wouldn't have wasted any time with all of
that discussion, for sure....
Secondly, look what I stated in that quote above - that "certainly animal
products wouldn't be a natural part of our diet" if humans actually fit the
(vegetarian) definition of frugivores I believed you were using. But the
natural animal diet based frugivore definition you actually were using
*does* allow some animal based products, as long as the diet is still mostly
fruit. So the definitions we were using obviously were different.
And finally, just for clarification, when I said "she has insisted numerous
times in other discussions that humans are actually frugivores", what I was
referring to in particular were simply recollections I have of someone or
another stating that humans are omnivores, and you replying that no, they
are frugivores, or else the other way around. Since you don't particularly
believe humans are physically equipped for hunting / meat eating, I
(mistakenly) assumed that you must be using some kind of vegetarian
definition of frugivore. I therefore thought it must be a "human"
fruitarian definition, all of which are vegetarian. But you actually
weren't, it turns out, you were using the natural animal diet based
definition which can contain some meat, which I had thought you wouldn't
use.
>> > You should have done your homework before launching a
>> > crusade against me. You've only made a fool of yourself.
>> ------------------
>>
>> I'm touched by your concern for my public image.......
>
> No skin off my nose. It is you who should be concerned.
-----------------------------------
And here I thought you genuinely cared...... woe is me....
>> (BTW, I have books on Natural Hygiene by Herbert Shelton so I am already
>> familiar with writings along the lines of the article on your website.)
>
> Give the lad a plum.
----------------------------
Thanks! A reward 'cause I had actually done some homework after all (long
ago, though).
>> >> So lets look a
>> >> little deeper into some specific vegetable foods. In the "What is a
>> >> Vegetable?" section on your website it states:
>> >>
>> >> "Vegetables are classified into four main categories: 1. FRUIT-BEARING
>> >> VARIETY: These are commonly referred to as "vegetables" but are
>> >> actually
>> >> non-sweet fruits, including tomatoes, squashes, peppers, cucumbers,
>> >> pumpkins, and eggplant."
>> >>
>> >> So Pearl, if you included such "vegetable fruits" as these in a
>> >> fruitarian
>> >> diet, it could still be considered a fruitarian diet. (They obviously
>> >> fit
>> >> into the Webster's Dictionary definition of fruit which you provided
>> >> above.)
>> >
>> > Right.
>> >
>> >> The article goes on with the other categories:
>> >> "2. GREEN VEGETABLES: Include the leafy greens, all non starchy
>> >> vegetables,
>> >> sprouts, and all cruciferous family vegetables such as broccoli,
>> >> cauliflower, brussel sprouts, cabbage and zucchini."
>> >>
>> >> 3. BULBS TUBERS AND ROOTS: Includes underground vegetables such as
>> >> carrots,
>> >> beets, potatoes, yams, turnips, parsnips, rutabagas, etc. Also
>> >> included
>> >> in
>> >> this category are mildly toxic, sharp tasting vegetables such as
>> >> garlic,
>> >> onions, scallions, leeks and radishes.
>> >>
>> >> 4. FUNGI: These include mushrooms, algae and seaweed vegetables."
>> >>
>> >> These vegetables are NOT included in section #1 above, and so they are
>> >> not
>> >> botanically considered to be fruits (or "vegetable fruits"). Do you
>> >> ever
>> >> eat any of the kinds of vegetables in section 1-4, Pearl? If so, then
>> >> according to your website you are not eating a fruitarian diet. You
>> >> do
>> >> eat
>> >> leafy greens, don't you?
>> >
>> > I am eating a *frugivorous* diet. Frugivores eat primarily fruits.
>> -------------------------
>>
>> There we go! Now you have shown that you are using the definition of
>> frugivore as it applies to natural animal diets. That's fine..... now
>> that
>> that's established I'll agree 100% with you that (by that definition)
>> frugivores eat *primarily* fruits, and so could eat vegetable matter that
>> falls outside of the botanical definition of "fruit", and still be
>> considered "frugivores". We'll carry on.....
>
> But you knew from the beginning that that is what I meant.
-------------------------------
Again, not at all (see above explanation).
>> > A terrestrial (as opposed to arboreal) frugivore will forage for
>> > more plant foods that are within easy reach near ground level.
>> >
>> >> >> >> > fruit, and perhaps
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Perhaps?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, "perhaps" - it depends on the type of fruitarian you wish to
>> >> >> be.
>> >> >> Fruitarians who are purists eat only fruits, and no nuts, seeds or
>> >> >> vegetables (meaning the "vegetable fruits" - cucumbers, sweet
>> >> >> peppers,
>> >> >> etc,
>> >> >> in particular).
>> >> >
>> >> > We're talking about a frugivorous diet. See definition above.
>> >> ---------------------
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it's clear now
>> >
>> > Now that you've actually read the article.
>> >
>> >> that you wish to go by the botanical definition(s) in
>> >> the article on your website.
>> >
>> > Uhuh.
>> >
>> >> But just for the record, there are fruitarians
>> >> who advocate a strict fruit only diet. For example Rejean Durette who
>> >> wrote
>> >> the book "Fruit: The Ultimate Diet" states:
>> >>
>> >> "A Fruitarian is someone who eats predominantly fruit and ideally
>> >> 100%.
>> >> "Fruits" include all tree fruits, all berries, watermelons, vine
>> >> fruits
>> >> like
>> >> kiwis and grapes and vegetable-fruits like tomatoes, peppers and
>> >> cucumbers.
>> >> Fruitarians living in tropical environments would consume coconuts
>> >> although
>> >> coconuts are often thought of as a nut. Some Fruitarians will consume
>> >> nuts
>> >> and vegetables to a certain extent, although these rarely would be
>> >> consumed
>> >> in any great amount by a Fruitarian, however we promote a true
>> >> fruitarian
>> >> diet, 100% fruit with no nuts and no vegetables or greens."
>> >>
>> >> http://www.fruitarianvibes.com/Fruitarian_Facts.htm
>> >>
>> >> And in contrast, just to show the variety of opinion here's a
>> >> fruitarian
>> >> website that promotes the optimum fruitarian diet as consisting of -
>> >> "all
>> >> the usual fruits you know, but we also think of avocado, cucumbers,
>> >> tomatoes, paprika, olives and squash as fruits. (They are actually
>> >> vegetable-fruits)." They consider the next best fruitarian diet to be
>> >> one
>> >> that also "sometimes" includes nuts and seeds:
>> >>
>> >> http://hem.fyristorg.com/fruitarian/whatEat.html
>> >
>> > They. Not I.
>> --------------------------
>>
>>
>> Understood...... you are going by the definition as applied to natural
>> animal diets. The references pertaining to the definitions of the more
>> strict "human" fruitarian diets I supplied above are irrelevant to your
>> definition. We'll carry on....
>>
>> >> >> >> > nuts, seeds, and maybe
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Maybe?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes "maybe". Some fruitarians eat fruits, nuts and seeds, but no
>> >> >> vegetables
>> >> >> (meaning not even the "vegetable fruits") at all. They don't
>> >> >> consider
>> >> >> them
>> >> >> to really be fruits.
>> >> >
>> >> > If that is true, then they err greatly.
>> >> -----------------------
>> >>
>> >> "There are different variations of fruitarianism. Some fruitarians
>> >> will
>> >> eat
>> >> only what falls (or would fall) naturally from a plant-fruits, seeds
>> >> and
>> >> nuts. Others may eat all biological fruits. The former argue that the
>> >> slippery slope of what 'would' fall from the plant leads to including
>> >> foods
>> >> that would otherwise be taboo. Grains are usually disallowed, as they
>> >> are
>> >> conventionally harvested by cutting down the plant."
>> >>
>> >> http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Fruitarianism
>> >>
>> >> and, from The American Heritage Dictionary;
>> >>
>> >> fruit·ar·i·an:
>> >> "One whose diet includes fruits, seeds, and nuts but no vegetables,
>> >> grains,
>> >> or animal products."
>> >>
>> >> http://www.bartleby.com/61/44/F0344400.html
>> >
>> > 1) frugivore.
>> > ...An animal, such as a chimpanzee or fruit bat, that feeds
>> > primarily on fruit. From frugivorous....
>> > http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?FILTER=col61&query=frugivore&x=0&y=0
>> ------------------------
>>
>>
>> Perfect! Thanks for providing the definition used for natural animal
>> diets,
>> proving you agree with it.
>
> Again, you knew that that is what I was referring to from the start.
--------------------------
Again, not at all (see above explanation).
>> As I'm sure you know, the frugivorous
>> chimpanzees generally do eat a small amount of meat in their diets.
>
> No, actually, I don't know that.
>
>> So when
>> you say humans are "frugivores", that means people can also include some
>> meat in their diet and be in full compliance with your definition, as
>> long
>> as the diet is still "mostly fruit".
>>
>> In fact, lets say someone eats a diet that consists of 60% fruits by the
>> botanical definition (including breads/grain and legume products, nuts,
>> seeds, and the "vegetable fruits"), as well as 20% vegetables that are
>> not
>> botanical fruits (tubers, leafy greens, etc.), 10% milk/dairy products
>> and
>> eggs, and 10% meat. By your accepted definition, that would be a
>> frugivorous diet.
>
> No, it would not. A frugivorous diet in favorable conditions
> would be more in line with the following percentages given:
>
> 'Kano and Mulavwa provided the most detailed account of
> the feeding behaviour of Wamba bonobos based on a
> 4-month study. Tuttle reports that their diet was 80% fruit
> pulp, 15% fibrous foods and 5% seeds, and that "Animal
> foods constituted a minute part of their fare" (p.95). '
> http://tinyurl.com/d8aqw
-----------------------------
Hmmm..... Let's take another look at that definition that you posted
earlier:
fru·gi·vore
"An animal, such as a chimpanzee or fruit bat, that feeds primarily on
fruit."
http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/F0344000.html
The definition says the animal feeds "primarily" on fruit, so I think that
simply means more fruit than other foods in the diet. I don't see any
maximum percentages specified for any particular food in your definition,
the only thing is that there must be more fruit than other foods. So I
don't agree with you that the diet I specified above with 10% meat would not
be frugivorous (by definition), since it also contains 60% fruit, more fruit
than anything else. That means it is primarily fruit, and therefore fits
your definition. In fact it could even have 40% meat and 60% fruit, and
still fit the definition. You'll have to explain to me exactly how that
doesn't fit your definition, I just can't see why, with no maximum
percentages for any particular food types specified.
You asked earlier in your post why I was surprised to find out that you were
using the natural animal diet definition for frugivore. Above is exactly
why. Unlike the more strict vegetarian ("human") fruitarian definition I
thought you were using, the natural animal diet frugivore definition you
were actually using can, by definition, contain quite a lot of meat (as far
as I can tell). And since you don't particularly believe humans are
physically equipped for hunting / meat eating, I was surprised to learn that
that definition was the one you had actually been using quite a lot on this
NG.
>> Well how about that! Who knows, there may even be meat
>> eaters on this NG who follow a diet similar to the one above, who insist
>> that humans are omnivores, and who you do battle with here insisting
>> that
>> humans are frugivores. Such a meat eater's diet would actually be in
>> full
>> compliance with the definition of frugivorous diet that you accept, meat
>> and
>> all. Amazing!
>
> If animal matter constitutes a minute part of their fare.
---------------------
Again, I don't see anywhere in the definition of frugivore you supplied that
states that animal matter must constitute "a minute part of their fare".
The only stipulation I see is that the diet must be primarily fruit. No
particular maximum amount is specified for any kind of food. Please explain
why animal matter must constitute a "minute part of their fare" to fit the
definition of frugivore you supplied.
>However:
> '.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range
> of dietary plant food composition that suggested an absence
> of a disease prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet
> is to an all-plant foods diet, the greater will be the reduction
> in the rates of these diseases.'
> http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html
---------------------------
I certainly agree that a lot of plant food in the diet is a good thing for
health. My own diet is loaded with fresh fruits, vegetables and whole
grains, and I love it! My Natural Hygiene books, and books by Paul Bragg
got me started on that back in the 1980s.
>> I apologize for earlier assuming that you were going by the more strict
>> definition that humans use for their fruitarian diets (which allows NO
>> meat-that's why I assumed that), rather than the frugivorous definition
>> that
>> applies to natural animal diets like that of the chimps, which does allow
>> meat in the diet, as long as the diet is still "mostly fruit". And I
>> apologize for earlier saying that you don't follow a frugivorous diet.
>> Now
>> that I know that you follow the much wider "animal" frugivorous diet
>> definition, I'll correct my record and state that you do follow it (as do
>> many others who may also eat meat, for sure).
>
> If no more than 2% of their diet as per your source below.
-----------------------
Please show where in the definition of frugivore you supplied it states that
the amount of meat in the animal's diet must be no more than 2%. If a chimp
happened to eat 3% meat one particular year, would it not be a frugivore
that year? Why?
>> I'm glad we've got that resolved! Friends now?
>>
>> Sincerely,
>
> Suuure.
--------------------------
What, you doubt my sincerity?? :-(
-erpt
=========================
>>
>> reference:
>> "Meat is a favored food item among chimpanzees, but does not make up more
>> than two percent of their overall diet."
>> http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp_central/chimpanzees/behavior/hunting.asp
>
> Gombe National Park is a limited area, and competition is high.
>
> '..The park is made up of narrow mountain strip of land about
> 16 kilometers long and 5 kilometers wide on the shore of Lake
> Tanganyika. From the lake shore steep slopes rises up to form the
> Rift Valley's escapement, which is covered by the dense forest.
> ..
> The dominating vegetation in this park include the open
> deciduous woodland on the upper slopes, gallery forests on
> the valleys and lower slopes. This type of vegetation is unique in
> Tanzania and has been supporting a large number of Chimpanzee,
> Baboons, and a large number of bird species. Other species seen
> here are colobus, blue and red tail monkeys. ..'
> http://www.utalii.com/gombe national park.htm
>
> 'Kortlandt states that predation by chimpanzees on vertebrates is
> undoubtedly a rather rare phenomenon among rainforest-dwelling
> populations of chimpanzees. Kortlandt lists the reasons given
> below in his evidence.
>
> # the absence (or virtual absence) of animal matter in the
> digestive systems of hundreds of hunted, dissected or
> otherwise investigated cases
> # the rarity of parasites indicating carnivorous habits
> # rarity of pertinent field observations
> # the responses when he placed live as well as dead
> potential prey animals along the chimpanzee paths at Beni
> (in the poorer environments of the savanna landscape
> however, predation on vertebrates appears to be much
> more common)
>
> Kortlandt concludes this section on primate diets by saying that
> the wealth of flora and insect fauna in the rain-forest provides both
> chimpanzees and orang-utans with a dietary spectrum that seems
> wide enough to meet their nutritional requirements, without hunting
> and killing of vertebrates being necessary. It is in the poorer
> nutritional environments, where plant sources may be scarce or of
> low quality where carnivorous behaviour arises. Even then he says
> that the meat obtained are minimal and perhaps insufficient to meet
> basic needs. Finally he adds "The same conclusion applies, of
> course, to hominids . . . it is strange that most palaeoanthropologists
> have never been willing to accept the elementary facts on this matter
> that have emerged from both nutritional science and primate research."
> ..'
> http://tinyurl.com/d8aqw
>
>
>> ===============================
>
> <..>
>
>
