Thanks for your comments, Liza!

LIFE F0RCE <[log in to unmask]>
>Yes, I thank you, too, for your calm and reasonable tone,  You mention a table
>comparing sugar in wild and cultivated fruits.  I'd like to see a table that
>compares Brix, sugar, fiber, and mineral values of wild and cultivated plants.

Tom:
There is some data on wild fruits, but it is spread in multiple scientific
journals (in different fields), and will be much work to compile for
analysis. I plan to do this someday, but it may be some months before I
can find the time. A complicating factor is that modern fruits are so
hybridized and "artificial" that it can be difficult to tell what their
wild predecessors are, and the fact that "half-artificial" forms have escaped
cultivation and are re-naturalized (e.g., the 'Turpentine' mango variety).
Still, it's an interesting question/problem. Even without direct comparison,
there is ample evidence that modern fruit is very UNnatural.

LIFE F0RCE <[log in to unmask]>
>Tom, in defense of Rex, I don't know if he said or meant to imply that fruit
>is the ideal food. (At least I hope not).  This entire discussion has been
>very helpful to me, and I'm glad to hear from someone who grows these things
>for a living. I wouldn't want to scare Rex off by jumping on him too hard
>about the sugar thing, out of a fear that he might be one more looney-fruit.

Tom:
I am aware the he did not claim fruit was the ideal food; I added that in
to generalize the remark. That is why I put a personal note to him at
the end. Rex - I value your information; don't be put off by the challenges
I present. Your promoting "sweet=natural" in disregard of well known information
about wild fruit, struck me as narrow. I confess it made me wonder if you
were another "toxic fruitarian" (we have seen several on this list,
most thrown off for hostility).

LIFE F0RCE <[log in to unmask]>
>I have been wondering about why this is so.  The entire history and heritage
>of the health-food culture seems to be full of this. In fact, it seems that
>the desirable cultural "style" is to make pompous claims to have an inside
>line to The Truth About Health, making sure to build a strong defense ahead of
>time against any probable attacks from the scientific community, by completely
>dismissing any real research or accepted theories as irrelevant. This attitude
>has left me bewildered and confused - since I just haven't been able to grasp
>how seemingly rational people can be so stupid! It is astonishing to me.

Tom:
Excellent comments! I think there is an inner need for comfort, which is
provided efficiently by simplistic dogma - whether dietary, political,
environmental, or even religious. Life is more complicated, and usually
ignores simplistic dogma - much to the distress of the idealists.

This also makes it easy for the charlatans. It's easy to recognize charlatans
when they promise their pill will cure anything; but a bit harder to see
this when the charlatan claims their diet will cure anything/everything.
Still, it's the same snake oil, just in different clothing.

LIFE F0RCE <[log in to unmask]>
>Speaking of common myths - I've asked on the other list - and I'll ask here -
>is there anything convincing that shows any evidence of a limited supply, or
>the depletability of the supply, of enzymes? I think I mentioned that I just
>read Howell's book and there was no study in the entire book, either of his
>own or of anyone else's,  to support this claim. Is the study of enzymes
>important in longevity research? If anyone knows, I'd appreciate some
>suggestions for where to look.

Tom:
Jean-Louis Tu wrote on this - it was posted Saturday of last week.
I posted one comment to the post as well. It's in the archives if you
missed it (the archives are wonderful!).

This is my 5th post of the day, so no more until tomorrow (Eastern time)...

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]