Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Wed, 26 Mar 1997 15:12:45 +0100 (MET) |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Kevin:
> I would like to think about the matter further. If natural fruits were
>not as sweet, (which I do not concede yet, since the earth has changed so
>much and many species have become extinct), perhaps we would have just eaten
>more fruit to get the same amount of sugars as we needed?
Wild fruits still grow in forests, we know they are generally tough,
fibrous, low in sugar, etc...
We have no idea how much fruit we would eat if they weren't
artificially selected. Wild chimps' diet is 68% fruit, and some fruits
they eat are terribly sour by human standards. I read that in a recent
survey, most people consider that (commercial) fruits are less
palatable than 5 years ago; my father find that even the sweetest
organic apples are not as good as the apples he ate 40 years ago; a
friend of mine, who relished strawberries when he was a kid, now finds
them so tasteless that he needs to add sugar. I also thought the same,
but last month, I ate 2 lbs of strawberries in a single meal (I know,
it's not very reasonable...). I guess that many years of cooked diet
have left us with a pretty denatured sense of taste.
We shouldn't act like apes by imitating chimps either... Sedentary
humans presumably need much less energy. Anyway, reversing your
argument, I would say that we should eat much LESS fruits than
original humans to get the correct amount of sugar (but the problem is
complicated; sugar is not the only nutrient in fruits).
Best,
Jean-Louis.
|
|
|