My Rant on Fruitarianism

ytain said:
I read the book and I'm totally disgusted by the stuff presented in it.

You found a link? I notice the link to the 'free edition' is no longer on their web page. I had downloaded it months ago and on the front page the first line says: Left in the Dark Free Edition 1st January 2012. It's a 222 page pdf; file size 3.03 mb. I was going to offer to upload it as an attachment if the file size is supported, but it seems that's no longer needed.
 
This was my initial response to these news surfacing as well. (I first saw the link that was provided by KristinLynne on fb, then I saw this thread)

As Laura said:
Laura said:
Amazing that something like this that clearly can kill people post-haste gets so much support and promotion.

And blatant lies, claims that are not backed up by ANY proof.
They just make them up and a lot of people actually believe it....
Ultimately it's very, very sad but at first - almost every time coming across something of this sort imo - it's mindboggling..

Carlise said:
smoking-child-billboard-1.jpg

And more of the same...

Buddy said:
ytain said:
I read the book and I'm totally disgusted by the stuff presented in it.
You found a link? I notice the link to the 'free edition' is no longer on their web page. I had downloaded it months ago and on the front page the first line says: Left in the Dark Free Edition 1st January 2012. It's a 222 page pdf; file size 3.03 mb. I was going to offer to upload it as an attachment if the file size is supported, but it seems that's no longer needed.

Buddy, I couldn't find the free file, though I looked yesterday, I would also like to read it (if it's free).
ytain, did you buy the actual book or found the file on the website?
 
Nuke said:
Buddy, I couldn't find the free file, though I looked yesterday, I would also like to read it (if it's free).

Well, the pdf says it's a "Free Edition" right there on the first inside page and the copyright for this edition says: Copyright © G. Gynn & T. Wright 2007 & 2008, FWIW. It was offered as a link on that web page at one time, but I'll let others be the judge. If a Mod or Admin OK's it, I'll upload it somewhere and link it here.
 
Nuke said:
Buddy said:
You found a link? I notice the link to the 'free edition' is no longer on their web page. I had downloaded it months ago and on the front page the first line says: Left in the Dark Free Edition 1st January 2012. It's a 222 page pdf; file size 3.03 mb. I was going to offer to upload it as an attachment if the file size is supported, but it seems that's no longer needed.

Buddy, I couldn't find the free file, though I looked yesterday, I would also like to read it (if it's free).
ytain, did you buy the actual book or found the file on the website?

I did not buy or find the free pdf. I had to ask a friend of mine who is vegetarian if she had it. She sent it to me by email. I guess the pdf I read is not the revised edition cause it is missing the references section. It has a lower number of pages, 198 pages and smaller filesize.

Ytain
 
Buddy said:
ytain said:
I read the book and I'm totally disgusted by the stuff presented in it.

You found a link? I notice the link to the 'free edition' is no longer on their web page. I had downloaded it months ago and on the front page the first line says: Left in the Dark Free Edition 1st January 2012. It's a 222 page pdf; file size 3.03 mb. I was going to offer to upload it as an attachment if the file size is supported, but it seems that's no longer needed.
I can't find a link to a free edition on the site. Would you still be interested in uploading it? I would like to read it just out of curiosity.
 
Job's beliefs certainly had a hug influence on what is served at the Apple campus restaurant.
I remember eating there about a year ago meeting a former colleague who's now at Apple and I had a hard time finding anything with plenty of saturated fat.
I had to settle for a turkey burger (no buns and fixings).
I asked my friend about the food selection and she told me Steve had had a say in what was served there.
From a recent news bit on the Google restaurant, it's not that different there: carbs and low fat.
"Healthy food" options seem to be salads and fruits.
 
domi said:
...From a recent news bit on the Google restaurant, it's not that different there: carbs and low fat.
"Healthy food" options seem to be salads and fruits.

In the earlier days of my career, "programmer food" was high carb AND high fat. It was OK, though, because we knew absolutely nothing about nutrition. A friend that helped me be hired at one job (in my mid-30's) was always going through boxes of Cheetos, which he kept in his desk. I owe much of the state of my health today to those days. In other words, I am fortunate to be alive.
 
opossum said:
I can't find a link to a free edition on the site. Would you still be interested in uploading it? I would like to read it just out of curiosity.

Here's a link to the free edition with its list of 'recommended reading' as well as about 9 or 10 pages of references.

_http://www.filefactory.com/file/6uav1yaqjpnv/n/Left_in_the_Dark_free_edition_pdf

No one has granted permission for me to link this here, so if this action is a mistake, someone please remove the link. Thanks in advance.
 
Thank you for the article about fructose and cancer. I knew about it, there's a video where is shown that carbs help to produce cancer.

This article may be of help in the future.
 
so I toned down the ranting and made it a bit more for general audiences... i feel like the info I have here has already been covered but /shrug

http://cyre2067.livejournal.com/152328.html

Really, Fruitarian?

The Fruitarian Diet

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.

Why Fruitarian?

To most Fruitarians, the diet is simply a natural progression, from omnivore to vegetarian, vegan, raw foods and finally Fruitarian. To some it is the chosen diet for health reasons. Others follow it because they believe humans were always destined to eat fruit, starting from the Garden of Eden.
The one thing that more Fruitarians mention above all others is a knowingness, an internal feeling that the Fruitarian diet is the diet meant for mankind.

Benefits of being Fruitarian

Cooked food is an unnatural human creation and is toxic to the body. Fruitarians eat 100% raw food as close as possible to its natural state. It is never possible to improve upon nature, a fact that many humans find hard to accept. When our diet is in harmony with nature, our health excels and our consciousness expands.

Protein shmotein

Vegetarians have been drilled with the age old question time and time again, "but where do you get your protein?" Oddly enough, vegetarians actually consume more protein than meat eaters. (According to Vegetarian Times) The question is about as ridiculous as asking, but where do you get your cholesterol? Americans are dying in masse because of overconsumption of protein rich foods....



I got that from here:
http://www.fruitarianvibes.com/Fruitarian_Facts.html

The bolded parts were mine as well... so there's a lot of lies in the above, and a lot of nonsense, and I wanted to point it out, using evidence, since that method of inquiry is so rare these days.

Cooked food is not 'unnatural'. Our bodies are designed for it. You can think of cooking as pre-disgestion, which takes some of the workload off your body. There's also a lot of hard science that shows eating meat is what fueled our cognitive evolution.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html
Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley anthropologist specializing in diet

By Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs


BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

It was this new meat diet, full of densely-packed nutrients, that provided the catalyst for human evolution, particularly the growth of the brain, said Katharine Milton, an authority on primate diet.

Without meat, said Milton, it's unlikely that proto humans could have secured enough energy and nutrition from the plants available in their African environment at that time to evolve into the active, sociable, intelligent creatures they became. Receding forests would have deprived them of the more nutritious leaves and fruits that forest-dwelling primates survive on, said Milton.

Her thesis complements the discovery last month by UC Berkeley professor Tim White and others that early human species were butchering and eating animal meat as long ago as 2.5 million years. Milton's article integrates dietary strategy with the evolution of human physiology to argue that meat eating was routine. It is published this month in the journal "Evolutionary Anthropology" (Vol.8, #1).

[snip]



So without eating copious amounts of meat our ancestors likely would not have survived. Before agriculture fruit and vegetables would have been available seasonally at best, so evolutionarily speaking, we're designed to be meat-eaters.

Also keep in mind agriculture is a relatively recent invention, we've been doing it for about ten thousand years. There's anywhere between two-hundred and five hundred thousand years of human history before that point, depending on which fossils you're talking about. Several ice ages - which wouldn't have allowed much flora to grow, but animals would still be an excellent source of protein and fat.

Coming back to Fruityism (I've changed the name), and fruits in general, they're composed primarily of carbohydrates in the form of fructose, water, fiber and very little protein. Most of the cells are surrounded by a cell wall that is indigestible by humans. That means we can access the protein and nutrients in that cell (we call it fiber). Let's talk about fructose for a moment, its a sugar, but a different type, and apparently it fuels cancer cells really well:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/02/cancer-fructose-idAFN0210830520100802

Cancer cells slurp up fructose, US study finds

Aug 2 (Reuters) - Pancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that challenges the common wisdom that all sugars are the same.

Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found. They said their finding, published in the journal Cancer Research, may help explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types.

"These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation," Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center and colleagues wrote.



Steve Jobs was Fruity and died of pancreatic cancer as a result. Ashton Kutcher tried the diet and doubled over with stomach pains and had his pancreatic enzyme levels all out of whack when he went to the hospital. Does the insanity seem apparent yet?

So let's talk about Lectins... these are defensive compounds plants and vegetables generate which inhibit digestive enzymes and/or bind minerals. Lectins are partially broken down when you COOK the fruit or vegetable (Making that whole 'raw' vege craze look kinda silly and Fruityism even worse). This stuff you can lookup anywhere by the way, just google Lectin or antinutrient and you can get the skinny yourself. Don't take my word for it.

You know what I eat? A lot of meat and fat. Animal derived, grass-fed, organic. This makes logical sense to me because human bodies are basically large red-meat-sacks. We're constantly generating new skin, new stomach lining, new hair, liver cells, muscle... all this takes raw material and the only input is coming from your diet. My cholesterol levels are 'on the high side' but still normal, and my HDL:LDL ratio is very good. Every cell of your body is surrounded by fat, your muscles, nerves, brain and heart - all encapsulated by a fatty protective layer.

Interestingly, when I get sick it's mostly due to a lapse in my dietary vigilance which means I'll have too much sugar or carbohydrates in a short period of time, or get poisoned with dairy/gluten - and my body reacts literally as if it's been poisoned.

The diet I'm on is called Ketogenic, and it's fascinating because it's impossible to get cancer while on it.

The Ketogenic Diet

All cells, including cancer cells, are fueled by glucose. But if you deprive them of glucose, they switch to the alternate fuel, ketone bodies.

Except cancer cells. A defect prevents them from making the switch to using ketone bodies as fuel and therefore, cancer cells can only survive on glucose. All other cells can use either glucose or ketone bodies.

"Your normal cells have the metabolic flexibility to adapt from using glucose to using ketone bodies. But cancer cells lack this metabolic flexibility. So we can exploit that," Dr. D'Agostino explained.

People like Hatfield, who want to deprive their cells of glucose and fuel them with ketone bodies instead, eat what's known as a ketogenic diet. It consists of almost zero carbohydrates, but lots of natural proteins and fats.


Always wanted to have a cancer cure by the time I was thirty. Can scratch that one off the bucket-list.
 
Buddy said:
Here's a link to the free edition with its list of 'recommended reading' as well as about 9 or 10 pages of references.
Thank you Buddy.
I didn't inclose the link in my response in case it gets deleted.
I know several people who are fruitarians and are in very bad health (especially psychologicaly), although for some reason they imagine that they are in good health. :huh:
I just wanted to read the book to see if I can find the holes in the logic, so to speak.
 
It's good but I would leave out this part:

Puck said:
You know what I eat? A lot of meat and fat. Animal derived, grass-fed, organic. This makes logical sense to me because human bodies are basically large red-meat-sacks. We're constantly generating new skin, new stomach lining, new hair, liver cells, muscle... all this takes raw material and the only input is coming from your diet.

Only because it doesn't gel with the faultless logic of the rest of your argument. All mammals need to perform those functions and have evolved different ways to do so using different raw materials. I see where you are coming from but I think some people might jump on this as a flaw in your logic.
 
Puck said:
so I toned down the ranting and made it a bit more for general audiences... i feel like the info I have here has already been covered but /shrug
...

Here is a sample of what I was exposed to when I was becoming a vegan:

_http://www.power4health.org/Overview/history.html

What was the original diet for the people on earth?

Seventh-day Adventists believe that the diet that was first intended for people was recorded in the ancient scriptures and changed slowly over time depending on a variety of circumstances. The original diet for humans was a totally plant based vegetarian diet composed mainly of, fruits, nuts and grains. According to these earliest recorded writings, God's ideal diet was given at creation as fruit, nuts and grains. Genesis 1:29

Later, the record shows that green leafy and other vegetables and herbs were added to man's diet. Genesis 3:18

After some time, in Genesis 9:3, everything that lives and moves was added to the diet with some major restrictions that included:

1. No blood. Genesis 9:4

It was after this time, according to the Biblical account that man's life span began to decrease dramatically.

Later, as the Israelites, or Hebrew (Jewish) race left Egypt, they were given specific instructions on health habits and types of foods and animals that they were permitted to eat in order to avoid the diseases that were the main causes of death for the Egyptians, such as cancer, diabetes, heart problems and infectious diseases.

2. No unclean animals. Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14;

3. No blood or fat. Leviticus 3:17

The details are different from the frutarians (oh how I want to make fun of that term), but the level of objectivity is similar -- zero. Notice once again the complete prohibition against potentially highly nutritious foods such as pork, blood, and fat. Some of this disinfo dates back over 100 years (obviously the biblical disinfo dates back much further). I don't know where the frutarians got their start (and I don't know if it is even important).

Naturally, the purported "original diet" dates back to only 6000 years ago. Sheesh. The intelligent (and sometimes meat-eating SDAs) that I knew privately thought this was ridiculous, but they had to keep their ideas to themselves. I finally left them to it to discuss it without me when I realized that the SDA evangelistic campaigns for which I was providing technical assistance (audio recording) utilized hypnotic techniques, as described (I believe) in The Wave. I suppose that it is even easier to entrance people if you lead them into a severely malnourished state first.
 
Back
Top Bottom