Tom:
Sorry to repeat the below, but I neglected to include an important part
of my reply. It is included below, labelled "Insert".

Tom:
>>Fruitarianism is a failure because it is far beyond the range of
>>diets that we are adapted to by evolution (and the claims of certain
>>fruitarian advocates that we evolved as fruitarians, are nothing more
>>than bogus crank science).

Forest:
>this statement to me takes little logical thinking to find flawed, since even
>modern cultures are consuming fruit in their s.a.d. diets. that proves to me
>that fruit has been a part of diet for a long time. i guess the question is
>then, at what crucial percent of consumption of fruit does it begin to become
>a problem in our health. at about 70% for about 10 years now and after
>numerous other long term diet experiments i have yet to find a more optimum
>diet.
>
>i agree with you, i doubt we evolved from 100% fruitarian heritage, but

Tom:
I define fruitarianism as 75+% raw fruit by weight, where fruit has the
common definition, not botanical.

My statement above is critical of certain crank science claims that humans
evolved on a nearly 100% fruit diet. The "science" behind such claims
is pure nonsense, if you examine it critically.

[Insert]
The fact that modern cultures include fruit in the SAD diet, is
not relevant to the question of whether we evolved on a nearly 100%
fruit diet, as some extremists claim. The logical flaw is yours
here, not mine. I never said that fruit was not part of the evolutionary
diet. Also, note that modern diets often include junk food, yet it is not
part of the evolutionary heritage.

The evolutionary diet almost certainly included the limited amounts of
wild fruits available. But it was not a fruitarian (or even vegan)
diet.

Tom Billings