Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home

From:	Lukas (24.86.162.223)
Subject:	Fruits and Vegetables consumption
Date:	November 18, 2008 at 11:37 pm PST

Should we eat Vegetables especially green leafy vegetables as a majority of our diet just because they are the most dense in terms of micro nutrients per calorie?

Would this reason make sense say if we were carnivorous species like Cats, Wolves, polar bears etc?

What if we were carnivorous such as some birds eating predominantly just grains? Would it makes sense to eat vegetables just because they excel in one particular area nutritionally.

What if we were insectivorous a species consuming predominantly insects?

What if we were Frugivorous like Chimps/Orangutans/Bonobos and other apes who predominantly consume fruits. Would eating most vegetables be beneficial?

Should we not consider other variables to determine what is our ideal physiological nutrition (species specific diet).

Lion would not improve their nutrition if a Lion started eating grains, nectar, or vegetables.

How about a Cow would a cow improve their nutrition if it started eating other animals or grains etc?

What I am try to communicate is that there are many factors to consider when try to identify the ideal physiological food for any species.

Every species has a unique digestive system geared to digest a specific diet, even omnivorous species don't consume all foods under neath the stars like we humans think we have to. But anyway most species eat a very specific diet on which they thrive. Herbivorous species consume predominantly grasses/herbs, Carnivorous species predominantly consume just animals, Great apes predominantly consume fruits, Carnivorous species consume predominantly whole grains.

So their digestive system is a key factor in showing us what is a species specific nutrition. Each one of these is able to perfectly digest their unique diet and they do it happily and easily. Every species on this planet that has been studied, results have shown that if/when they consume a variety that goes outside their species specific diet that their health goes down proportionally to the degree to which they deviated from their ideal diet.

Lion or Hyena would not thrive more if they swap 50% of their animal diet for grasses. Their health would drastically be reduced.

Every species consumes their food AS IS found in nature.
Every species is highly attracted to this AS IS food or shall we say unprocessed food.
Every species is able to fully digest this AS IS food which makes up their species specific diet.
Every species does not Heat Treat or cook their nutrition nor do they have to because they are able to digest is easily and happily AS IS.

Are we Humans THE EXCEPTION?

Do we NOT have a food that is highly appealing to us in terms of taste/sight/feel AND which is completely able to be digested by us AS IS found in nature with no processing. A food that meets ALL our nutritional needs.

What would your logic say? Out of 10's of millions of species of animals are we humans the one species where there is absolutely no food that we can digest AS IS, no food that is highly attractive to us in terms of consuming it, Is cooking and processing of any kind our necessity?

If this makes no sense to you than please stop reading. But if you are getting my point than please continue.

Of course we have a species specific diet/nutrition like all other 10's of millions of species. A food

That highly appeals to our senses (Colorful, sweet and juicy). A food that is very very easily digested / absorbed / eliminated by us/our digestive system. A food that hydrates us very effectively, a food that is nutritionally more than sufficient to meet our needs. etc.

All we need to do is look for species that are similar to us. Because these species will have very very similar digestive system and will have a diet/nutrition that we can model and thrive on.

Law of similar is evident in nature. Horses, cows, and sheep have very similar digestive systems and therefore they have very very similar diets on which they thrive on, Grasses predominantly in this case.

Don't get me wrong micro nutrients are vitally important for all species not just us. But determining our or any other species physiological diet (species specific diet) just by considering this single factor makes no logic to me. We should look at several factors to determine what is our ideal diet, and I will go as far as to say that this equation should be generic and applicable to any species otherwise its not accurate/correct.

Should all species consume predominantly green leafy vegetables just because they have incredible density of micro nutrients.

Why not say that we should consume leaves or wood because they have super high fiber content?

Or why not say that we should predominantly consume Nuts and Seeds because they have an incredible Fat content?

Why not say to consume predominantly flesh/animals because they have most similar structure and highest protein content?

OK so if you are still with me and assuming that the people running this post have the guts to not delete my post lets continue.

When we look at species closest to us Bonobo(Pan Paniscus), Orangutans, Chimpanzee and to a lesser degree Gibbon, Siamang. All of these apes thrive on a highly specific nutrition/diet which does not have to include all foods under neath the starts and all their needs nutritionally are met, and they can digest their diet almost effortlessly without needing to cook, they consume all their food without needing to process it in any shape or form. Also their food is highly appealing to their senses of taste/smell/sight.

What is it Whole, Fresh and Mature Fruits PREDOMINANTLY and as a minority in their diet comes tender green leaves / herbs. Sure they eat tiny tiny amounts of all kinds of things such as pith,insects,nuts and seeds,monkeys etc but this makes up a tiny part of their diet. Every primatologist will tell you that they get a vast majority of their calories and food volume from whole fresh fruits. But what is even more interesting is that there is an interesting trend in terms of fruit consumption. The closer the ape comes to us in its DNA structure the higher the percentage of fruit consumption they have. So when you look at the Gorilla for example they consume fruits but not as much as the Gibbon, Siamang and Chimpanzee. Than the closest to us the Bonobo has the highest consumption of fruit out of any of the primates as a percentage of their diet. They still eat leaves but typically tender leaves or tender leaf tips.

So at this point we can accept the law of similar and conclude that we would thrive best on a diet that is very very similar to the Bonobo, Chimpanzee, or Orangutans. We could say that yes it is true that fruits and salads "green leafy vegetables" are the most appealing to our senses, the most easily digested by our body, meet our nutritional needs just as Primates need are met. ETC ETC.

Or does our logic say that we are Herbivorous creatures like cows and horses which are the closest to us RIGHT! or even better shall we say that we are Omnivorous like most bears and that we should eat flesh/vegetables and fruits etc.?

I hope that your Logic and common sense answers these to you clearly.

If it was true that we should be consuming vegetables as a majority of our nutrition than we would have no need to process them, we would be able to digest them easily, they would appeal greatly and no salt, oils or condiments would be necessary. If meat was part of our ideal diet that we would have no need to isolate it from organs/blood/whole animal, marinate it, tenderize it, spice it, put some herbs on it, bake or cook it to death, put condiments on it, and mix it with other foods like rice/gravy/potatoes etc. If you believe we are omnivorous than flesh from whole animal must be appealing to you. If a slit open chicken with half it organs out and still warm and bloody and furry would appeal to you and any omnivore or carnivore would consume the animal whole with delight only leaving bones and fur.

We can only do this to a piece of fruit and we can do it with delight and satiation. I had not one meat eater who has passed my test to see if he/she is an omnivore. Not one yet in 5 years. A bear consumes the whole fish usually unless there are surplus than sometimes he will choose the fatty eggs from salmon to fatten up quicker. A lion or any cat will eat the inside of an animal organs/blood/muscle all warm, raw and fresh. Can we do that. We can even eat a head of Kale or Mustard Greens without having objections how indigestible it is and what a horrible after taste it gives us.

Our physiological diet/species specific diet is:

Whole, fresh, mature FRUITS and tender green leafy vegetables which are not spicy or bitter. Small and appropriate quantity of nuts and seeds is also in our ideal diet.

Or maybe we MUST eat vegetables that are indigestible and unattractive to consume AS IS and we are the exception out of 10's of millions of species that have to cook and process our food in order to survive or thrive. Come on give me a break this is far far from an ideal physiological diet. It would be a misery if food tasted unappealing to any species and required cooking/spicing/condiments etc.

All I am saying is that most of us would benefit if we broaden our scope during our journey of health.

Look Green leafy vegetables are important part of our ideal diet but only the vegetables that we can actually digest as is. Green leafy vegetables have incredible density of micro nutrients PER CALORIE but what Dr. Joe forgot to tell you perhaps is that they also have a incredibly low CALORIC density (calories per mass or weight). So now lets look at the bigger picture if I consume 1 lb of sweet fruit which has 5 to 10 times more calories than say a pound of salad (green leaf or celery etc.) than you can see that the fruit makes up for its lower micro nutrient to calorie density compared with the vegetable because you are getting much much more calories pound for pound. I hope this give you some new perspective.

Also the fruit will give your carbohydrates the fuel that your body needs to run on and build on. Vegetables have not only insufficient total calories and insufficient carbohydrates but they even have insufficient percentage of carbohydrates/calorie. To much calories from protein and fat and too little from carbohydrates. Virtually all societies around the world had starch as staple in their diet because our body need carbohydrates in vast majority relative to fat and protein. If you are or want to be on a raw food diet than it is only possible to do it happily and successfully by consuming majority of your nutrition from sweet fruits. There is no other way to get sufficient carbohydrates on a raw diet as a frugivorous species. The overwhelmingly vast majority of raw fooders are consuming 50 and 60% of their calories from fat to make up for their lack of carbohydrates because they did not learn to consume enough volume of sweet fruit that would give them enough carbohydrates. Only if we had a herbivorous digestive sytem than sure we could get enough calories and carbohydrates to meet our needs. I still have not jet found one human that happily lives on a herbivorous diet predominantly comprising from "fresh" whole vegetables/grasses ( and I mean "fresh" not processed)

I only met two individuals so far that teach a nutrition which is our species specific diet and who actually believe and teach that the diet is nutritionally complete and supplementation is unnecessary and undesireable. They are Dr. Douglas Graham www.foodnsport.com and Loren Lockman www.tanglewoodwellnesscenter.com

Every single other "Nutrition or Health" guru that I met/heard/saw believes and teaches that their version of "ideal diet" but teaching and admitting that it is nutritionally insufficient and therefore supplementation is required calling for supplements/super foods. Or every single other guru states that their diet is partly indigestible and therefore requires some degree of processing/cooking. Or every other guru states that their diet is partly unappealing to our senses because the food is not even able to be consume by itself as a meal which every species is able to do. Have you notice that species eat one thing at a time almost always and also they eat a meal of that ONE ingredient/food. They don't need to combine because it is so appealing that they can eat that one food for an entire meal. WHY WHY WHY?

WHOLE FRESH MATURE FRUITS AND TENDER VEGETABLES ALONG WITH SOME NUTS AND SEED IS THE IDEAL DIET FOR PRIMATES AND IN MY OPINION OURS TOO. ANYTHING ELSE IS JUST "WONDERING IN THE DESSERT FOR 40 YEARS)

LUKAS

Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home