Hi Lynton,

> Hi Alan,
>
> Thank you for your input to this idea, which has also had the suggestion of
> a FAQ added by Martha (with some support, and I agree).

> The way you respond suggests to me that you felt attacked in some way by the
> post.  Not so.
>
No way ma'am..you asked what we thought of the idea and I gave you
my views..nothing more..nothing less.

> I feel that its important to provide newcomers with some reasonable ideas
> about what generally works and what generally does not.

I appreciate your view but there is no such thing as "generally" in
this area. Even a cross-section of fruitarians will probably have
totally different fruit diets as well as totally different tastes
and preferences. To say that something "generally" doesn't or
couldn't work is merely reporting the experiences of a relatively
small number of individuals who probably all "did their own thing"
to a large degree and failed. The theory behind fruitariansm as
laid down by the NH founders still remains sound (in that it has
not been scientifically proven wrong) and there actually are
people who are having success with such a regime (our own
Helmut Wandmaker, for example). The availability of fruit more
in line with what we probably ate (i.e. tropical fruit) and in
a relatively pure and ripe state is something which was rare
(and drastically expensive) even a decade ago. It is even
possible to use dubious nutrient figures such as those in
conventional tables to properly plan a diet which contains
everything we are supposed to need (although I have never done
this). The well-known fruits such as apples, lemons, oranges,
peaches, plums and pears etc. are most certainly not the only
fruits around and the availability of better alternatives in
a ripe and organic form has never been better than today
IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT. Fruitarianism (although I do not
practise 100% frutarianism myself..round about 50% is
about right for me and my pocket) is more viable today
than it ever was in the more recent past providing it is
well-planned. Nonbody has as yet proven this wrong..and
some (admittedly only a few in comparison and mainly those
who can afford it and planned well) have proven it right.

I may be going on a bit here but basically what I am trying
to say here is that a FAQ can never present facts in this
field (because everyone has their own..often opposing..views
on this subject.

> There is plenty of
> scope for people to provide their own experiences, and these are most
> welcome, as long as its explained that way.

Experiences, whether personal, the experiences of a group or the
experiences of a research team reporting on the experiences they
had with any number of people are the only way we gain and extend
our knowledge on the human body and human health. This is because,
despite what some people regularly like to deny, people may be
different in many ways but their metabolism (other than those
suffering from metabolic illnesses of course) is identical. They
all need the same nutrients in roughly the same amounts each
day (or even every 5 years as in B12) and they all build protein
from aminos and need to feed their brains with simple sugars
etc..

> In this regard, to say "x worked for me, under these conditions" is fine,
> but to extrapolate that "x works for everyone, its what you should do" is
> not.

I would answer "yo" to that one (a mixture of yes and no). If a
person said he had suffered from, say, acne for a period of 15
years and suddenly started eating bananas in addition to his
normal diet and the condition disappeared almost overnight,
what would you (or anybody else) say? I would love to hear the
answers to that one. Some would say "merely coincidence" but
what a coincidence! Some would say that he was continually
eating less than the recommended daily dose of such and such
and the bananas tipped the balance (hardly likely but remotely
possible..yesterday rather than today because most people
nowadays get regular blood checks). Others, like myself, for
example, would say that it is hardly likely that a person who
has eaten a diet for 15 years which causes acne has not
suffered from a number of other even more serious complaints.
So if the guy or gal hasn't suffered any typical ailments for
some nutrient deficiency other than acne, then there must be
something in the banana that everybody, including this person,
needs that we need to know about. IOW..it is a question of
approach.

> And I am not saying here that anyone in particular is guilty of doing
> this (probably a very careful search could find even me guilty of this, who
> knows?).
>
I remember once saying that a two-week water fast (with accompanying
bowel irrigation) will "cure", i.e. control, a herpes outbreak. When
I say something like that then I know (from thousands of people
who have tried it) that it is true. Anybody wishing to find out
can relatively easily find out for themselves. IOW there are things
that are known and there are things that are suspected. You must
merely differentiate between the two. To attack someone who claims
he or she knows without trying it out for onesself (or at least
reading enough reliable research reports which state otherwise..
and which report is reliable nowadays?) merely results in
fruitless (sorry for the pun) bickering.

>Fruitarianism may seem extreme to you (I only gave it up after three years
>
> Well, at last I know how long you were eating fruits exclusively - I would
> be really interested in which fruits, specifically, and what quantities of
> each.

I gave it up (as I have often said before) because it was
expensive. I did not suffer any ill effects (like peeing every
5 minutes) as some have reported and am still convinced that it
is a viable diet.

> And how often there was a non-fruit item taken in, if any, and what
> it was.

No non-fruit items (not even nuts or avos, for example) during
that period.

> On the other hand, I tried fruitarianism also, remember, with disasterous
> results even though I was eating quality fruits.  Maybe not the "right"
> ones? who knows.  So you will forgive me for thinking that that way of
> eating is extreme for me.  Others on this list have come to the same
> conclusions for themselves.
>
Any diet other than the "normal" diet is considered extreme by
someone somewhere. Food to many is not a means of gaining health
but a means of gaining anything from comfort for some other
deficiency in life to sensual pleasure. Nevertheless, even I
tried to "please my palate" and would have failed miserably if
it were not for the fruits and berries in my own organic garden
as well as the (more expensive) but absolutely delicious,
"exotic" fruits (such as jackfruit and durian etc.) offered
fast and 100% ripe by extremely reputable organic food suppliers
such as Orkos. Apes can pick and choose in a more or less intact
environment, humans have more trouble with this nowadays.

> > but it is neither extreme nor
> >even rejected by many). Just because the majority of people in this list
> >at this time reject fruitarianism (and they are hardly a representative
> >cross-section of the world population)
>
> Well, the people on this list are a select group, considering that probably
> most are interested in eating as raw as they can be healty doing it.
> Compare say 100 to 200 here against a world population of over 5 billion,
> most of whom eat cooked foods and many of whom are not interested in even
> discussing eating all raw.  So you are right, we are not a representative
> cross-section of the world population, so we should be biased.  I would
> guess that many on this list (myself included) would love to eat fruitarian
> if the way was clear to do so healthily.  So how about telling us how, since
> you made it work for you?
>
I hope, from what I have said above, that you at least get the gist of
what I am trying to say. As to what I ate (which was merely a cross-
section of what I could get my hands on and which appealed to my
palate...instincto??), where do I start? Fruitarianism, for a
person like me living in a more northern climate to someone living
in say California or even further south, was both enjoyable and
healthy but hard on the pocket. I did not suffer from having to
pee every five minutes and neither did my teeth drop out or get
increased caries. This latter argument is a joke in itself and
reduces the credibility of those that claim this to just about
zero. Even eating unripe citrus fruits (i.e. citric acid) will
not attack the tooth enamel. In addition, the body does not
allow it to attack the tooth enamel even if it could. Anybody
armed with a piece of litmus paper (or a pH meter) can test
this him or herself. Eat an unripe orange, for example, and test
the Ph in your mouth a couple of minutes later. And anybody
who claims that ripe fruits contain sugar and this must obviously
attack your teeth is also suspect. Simple sugars do not stick
to your teeth, they are dissolved in saliva and swallowed.
So where are the scientific counterarguments here? IOW, what
I am trying to say here is that there are things that are known
if one is careful to read up on them or if one experiments
onesself.

> >does not mean that fruitarianism
> >can not succeed and is not the best approach,
>
> I think the idea is to give a warning about how few succeed.
>
Warning people about how few succeed is neither encouraging and
nor is it strictly truthful. As long as there are successes then
this is a sign that something is going right. Many people warned
against listening to a guy who claimed that the world was a globe
rather than a flat disc.

> >merely that the majority
> >of people in this list are from a country which has a bad track record
> >for providing its people with quality food.
>
> As for using this as the reason for failure is unscientific at best.  You
> have no idea of the specifics of the foods these people were eating.
>
The majority of the people in this list are from that country and
it is equally true that the majority of the people in that
country are even being fooled by their own government as to what
they are eating. www.notmilk.com may be about milk but there are
many other examples concerning other products (new fats, soybeans
etc. etc. etc.). Whereas I personally would not question the
sincerity and credibility of those who are really interested in
good food from this part of the world, there are many others
who would (with reason) and this has to be taken into account
when producing a FAQ comprising mostly of THEIR majority
opinion (they do tend to attempt to shoot others down and
this is often rather embarassing).

> >
> >> That 100% raw is probably a bit extreme in the experience of many on the
> list.
> >>
> >As it is not the experience of all in this list,
>
> Since I have had the opportunity of reading what people on this list have
> had to say for quite some time, very few old-timers claim that they are in
> fact 100%raw, but I certainly would be interested in how many are...
>
I and very many others in Germany alone. How's that for a start?

> >please refrain from
> >trying to act as spokesman/woman for the list as a whole.
>
> Putting forward a suggestion and asking for opinions doesn't look to me like
> speaking for everyone.
>
It may not to your own folks in your own country Lynton, but this
is an international echo which many are merely reading rather
than contributing to simply because they are afraid to try out
their limited English.

> > 100% raw
> >certainly is difficult for some for any number of reasons, but is
> >neither impossible if it is planned properly and nor is it in any
> >way detrimental as against cooked if it is studied properly.
>
> Saying this, you must know a lot about it, so how about telling us how?
>
I would love nothing more than to do exactly that! OTOH I can tell
you all those wild plants I eat in Germany, but do they grow where
you are? If some Englishman asks me..no problem..as most of
the wild plants I eat also grow in the UK (some also in the
USA of course). What would you like to know?

> >I have often spoken about <snip of examples of useful aspects of raw eating>
>
> The whole point of a welcome message and/or FAQ is to have useful references
> that one can do to directly - a sort of sum of wisdom - rather than having
> to go to the archives which include so much discussion of things not really
> relevant to the list, even if they have their own satisfactions.
>
Don't get me wrong Lynton, I appreciate your suggestions..as I am
sure all do.. but just don't forget we are in the web and talking
to an international audience. Thus national difficulties and
politics are of limited interest and use.

Best regards,

Alan