Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive 1

message: For one, I'm not a fructarian - "only" a near lacto-vegetarian - but some of this text is outrageous and seems to be written by someone with strong prejudice against fructarianism, or even vegetarianism in general. Let's put this straight. (Note that, when I'm talking about nuts, I'm not including peanuts, which are in fact legumes.)
Vitamin B12 in the long term, may be a problem. That's the one point that I agree with. I don't know any plants that contain substantial amounts of B12. Nowadays, people just use supplements.
:The high sugar content of their diet can cause diabetic or hypoglycemic-type symptoms,
First of all, tomatoes, squash, legumes, seeds, peppers and grains, among others, aren't known for their high sugar content. So this is nonsense. Second, there is no substantiated evidence that a high sugar diet causes diabetes. This is a myth. Even if it weren't, a typical fruitarian diet does not contain more sugar calorie for calorie than a Big Mac and a pint of coke.
:while it is lacking in protein,
Lentils are allowed in a fruitarian diet, and (by dry mass) they're 30% protein. Go figure. They contain more protein calorie for calorie than just about any but the leanest poultry (they'd even have more if it wasn't for a fair amount of starch). Other legumes are also quite rich in protein (though not at a whopping 30%). When combined with about the same amount of cereals, which are also allowed for fructarians, the bioavailability ("completeness") of the protein may exceed 95% - it's then even higher than in beef (which has ca. 91% bioavailability). Nuts are also rich in protein, and so are mushrooms. There may be idiots who eat nothing but fruit salad, but any sane fructarian will have no trouble at all satisfying his/her protein requirements.
:minerals,
Stop. This is getting ever better. Which kind of minerals are you talking about? E.g.
* iron (it's often claimed that vegetarian diets wouldn't contain enough): found in legumes (best digested with vitamin C, but vitamin C is abundant in various fruits, e.g. lemons and bell peppers)
* magnesium: peanuts, e.g., contain lots of it
* potassium: legumes, bananas, apples, etc. contain lots of it
* zinc: beans, nuts and sunflower seeds, for example, are rich in zinc
* calcium: Nuts. That simple.
etc.
So which kind of minerals are you talking about? I'm not saying there are none, but please be more specific.
:and fat-soluble vitamins.
Let's see. You can't be speaking about vitamin A, because there are lots of beta-carotin in tomatoes, bell peppers, mangos, melons and apricots - among others. Maybe vitamin D? The body can produce vitamin D in the skin, given sufficient exposure to UV light (e.g. sunlight). This may be a problem for dark-skinned people living in colder climes, but it isn't a problem for white people who're outside in the daytime for at least 2 hours a week (and not too covered). Vitamin E, maybe? Almonds, wheat germs and other seeds contain high amounts of vitamin E. Vitamin K? This is a little more difficult since the best sources are root vegetables, but soybeans (and thus tofu), alfalfa seeds and oats contain enough of it to keep the fructarian happy. As usual with vegetable sources, the food, unless naturally rich in oils (like nuts and peanuts), should be prepared with oil in order to make the fat-soluble vitamins optimally digestible.
:Long-term fructarians are prone to food cravings and consequent binge-eating,
I don't see major nutrient deficiencies that necessarily arise from fructarianism. I don't even see "missing tastes" in terms of basic tastes. I mean salty, sour, bitter and sweet are easily obtained in a fructarian diet, along with a little salt. And tomatoes and mushrooms are umami. E.g., I eat next to no meat for quite a while, and I have no meat cravings whatsoever. I don't think there are physiological causes for food cravings in a fructarian following a well-rounded diet. There may be psychological reasons, but this isn't unusual for any restricted (from an omnivore point of view) diet.
Of course I am speaking of people who know what they're doing (this is always a good idea wrt nutrition). The more restricted a diet is, the more difficult it is to get the right balance of essential nutrients. One of the biggest and most frequent mistakes on the road to vegetarianism is just quitting on meat, like you'd quit on cigarettes. If you still consume dairy products, this may work, but in case you're becoming a "true" vegetarian, or even a fructarian, you're asking for trouble. You need to know something about vital nutrients, you need to care about diversity, and (not to be underestimated) you need to f... know how to make a diet of vegetables, fruit, nuts, legumes and cereals taste great. A major problem in traditional omnivore cuisine is that people know 1000 ways to spice meat and make delicious meat sauces, but e.g. think all it takes to make a salad is vinegar and some corn oil. There are so many delicious, well-spiced vegetarian dishes from chilis over lentil and mushroom burgers to currys, but the popular image of vegetarians is often that of someone who has to force himself to gulp down his ration of steamed carrots and peas. I think it's out of this popular image that much of the prejudice I've mentioned here has arisen. Wikipedia needs to and can do better than this, I'm certain.
Thanks for your attention. -- Aragorn2 21:58, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You should add all that info in, I had next to no idea that you could live healthily off fruit.  Interesting...Cameron Nedland 03:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV alarm

message: If you're rich and you're living in a rich society, you may eat a healthy diet with nearly whatever restrictions so long as you are allowed to cherry pick your food and take any required supplements.
I guess I can eat just apples and live very well. If I have the money, I can probably separate the minute amounts of protein from the sugar-rich apple. If the protein lacks some sort of essential amino acid, I'll take some algae- or bacteria-based supplements. I'll also take linseed oil pills and maybe some multivitamins and fiber pills.
As long as you have money, you can do anything you want.
Vegetarianism, in my opinion, is for spoiled kids. When you eat vegetables, you discard lots of tissues. Hua=man cannot digest fiber. Therefore, many plants' roots, stems and leaves must be abandoned. We are not cows. We are closer to tigers. If I have the money, I can probably feed a great white shark using only plant-derived fats and proteins. I only need to throw away fibres and sugars.
I know some of you may say you're eating a whole cabbage. So what? Cabbages are grown in a highly fertilized field. To get your cabbage, it takes over 100 years of cultivation. Otherwise, you get weeds. These vegetables are on the top of the food chain. They consume nitrogen supplied from fertilizers. And it takes lots of efforts to keep bugs away from your cabbage. These are not normal wild plants.
Anyway, eating fruits only is not for the rest of us. -- Toytoy 18:29, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
I think you'll find that the country with by far the most vegetarians of any in the world, making up about 25% of the country's population, is India. I'd hardly say the majority of people living in that country are "spoiled". Ralphael 17:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiled vegetarians

message: I removed a link to christian anarchism because there was no mention of fruitarianism on that page. I also removed the pseudoscience link.  It doesn't seem to fit here, as this appears to be more a moral issue than trying to find the best diet. (Sorry, I accidentally marked it a minor edit.) --Dforest 01:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed see also links 

message: i would like to see somethng more on health benefits and healh problems related to this type of diet
Yes, I agree.
We need at least some potential health risks in the criticism section. Because currently, there are no negative health effects listed. Surely with a diet such as this, there could be adverse effects.
SkinnyZan 23:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  effects on health 

message: I really wonder just how much the reputation of wikipedia is improved by cataloging all the most esoteric and stupid human ideas and treating them like they're serious propositions worthy of academic record.  These people are fruitcakes who haven't got anything more interesting to offer than an eating disorder.  Now, I'm sure there's alot of diversity and multicultural left-wing crap to take into account around here, but even that shouldn't mean that we have to article every single nutty idea that has three followers living in a commune in Chipping Norton.  All of these dumb ideas should be listed under a single article called "Crazy Crap that has no impact on the progress of mankind".--Corinthian 20:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think this is weird myself, but lets not insult people just cuz of diet choice.Cameron Nedland 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename "Friggin Morons Who Eat Fruit Because They're Weak and Stupid"

message: Okay, I agree that some of these statements need sources, but who is the one putting some of these "citation needed" alarms on statements like:
"Killing is opposed to normal human behavior"?
I ask this person to walk up to his or her mother and kill her and see if the action can be performed without a second thought.
Mdbrownmsw 00:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  on the issue of the  tags: i realize that it is quick and easy to throw these down, but it is far more constructive to actually find and insert appropriate sources instead. -- frymaster 14:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mdbrownmsw 19:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for Citations 

message: I really hate to be so critical, but this really bad. The motivation section is poorly written and looks like it could be rolled up into a pros and cons table. I'll give some changes a shot, but is anyone else thinking that this whole article needs an overhaul, or am I just being mean? Phauge 02:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to do just this. My idea is to return the page to it's prior state about a month ago. In that no claims will be made as to the validity of the diet, and only the strict definition and motivation of Fruitarians will be mentioned. I will leave critisms, but get rid of this argueing style of writing that fills them. Everyone should be in agreement to that, as no claims to neither justify nor condemn anything shall be present. --Mincan 22:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I have rewritten the page to get rid of the neutrality marker and the weasel words marker. What I have done is: (1) Got rid of criticisms in the motivation section, where they do not belong, and simply state what fruitarians believe, not that it is correct. (2) Removed Fruitarian claims at validity from motivation and the ensueing debate like writing that is non-encyclopedic and does not belong there. (3) Removed Fruitarian counter-claims against criticisms, as most did not contain any proof and therefore do not stand. Also, to have statements that justify the diet right within criticisms is also debate like, non-encyclopedic, and does not belong in the section. In fact, no debate belongs in this article whatsoever. We will leave that to the realm of science, and let an encyclopedia article simply define the term, not justify it nor condemn it. That is a POV and belongs in private sites. I trust everyone will be happy with this rewrite as it is what has been asked for. Please discuss any further large scale changes here so that they can meet with group approval. --Mincan 23:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing work. You should be quite proud. I hardly recognize the article from what it was before. Fantastic. Phauge 00:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much sir. Especially for that award! Greatly appreciated.--Mincan 03:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a rewrite 

message: Substituted at 20:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment