Alan:
>The theory behind fruitariansm as
>laid down by the NH founders still remains sound

Prove it or retract it, Alan.

>(in that it has
>not been scientifically proven wrong)

It has been shown extremely improbably. Omnivorism has not been proven
wrong either. Just extremely probable. ;)

>and there actually are
>people who are having success with such a regime (our own
>Helmut Wandmaker, for example).

I am getting tired of you positing this Helmet fellow as proof af
frutarianism's validity. One fellow that you happen to know does not
constitute a proof.

>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.

One would say it appeared to work for that person. If one were to say it
would appear to work for _everyone_ then they would be absurdly illogical.

>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.

Good God. Your logic is faultless, self-evident, and most glorious! =:O

>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.

Thousand of people, eh? If you think people will take your word for crap
like that, you are mistaken. Support that statement or retract it.

Besides, since herpes outbreaks are usually self-limiting your "method"
doesn't mean much does it?

>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.

To ignore the experiences of many who have tried and failed to gain health
on various regimes merely results in bickering--especially when you feel
that _your_ regime is right and most of the rest are wrong.

>>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.

And we would all be interested in your buddy Helmut's diet--specifically
which fruits and what quantities. You have been asked by others for this
info but have ignored the requests, so I will repeat it.

>I gave it up (as I have often said before) because it was
>expensive.

Yes, Alan, we get it.

>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.

There are many viable diets, perhaps as many viable diets as there are
viable people. Why would you blind yourself to every regime but raw
veganism?

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

Then you were pigging out on dried fruit, dates, figs, and/or bananas if
you didn't become emancipated after three years. Unless you were grossly
overweight to begin with. Don't try to tell us otherwise. There are too
many folks here with more experience than yourself who will see right
through your lies.

>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.

No wild chimpanzee ever ate a durian or a jackfruit as they are not native
to Africa. (Orangs, alone in the "ape" category, feast on them--actually
_champadek_ and durian--in season.) Neither did a chimp ever feast on your
temperate zone berries and stone fruit. Chimps favor animal foods when they
available, so don't imply that "apes" are fruitarian or that apes have a
wider selection of the highly domesticated fruit that you can enjoy because
your exotics take a plane ride. My, but that doesn't sound very
environmentally friendly to me. ;) Someone should figure out the amount of
airline fume pollution Europe's ORKOS consumers have released into the
upper atmosphere by buying fruits from the other side of the world, as well
as traveling there to pig out on them.

>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.

Only your experience counts and everyone else's must be considered a "joke"
and without credibility? You are something else, Alan.

>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?

Again, the burden of proof is yours. You made several totally
unsubstantiated statements as facts in that paragraph. Many folks have had
contrary experiences to your "facts". Your ph test proves nothing except ph
of your saliva a few minutes later. Classic, Alan, classic.

>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.

Yup. That's what many here are telling you too.

>Warning people about how few succeed is neither encouraging and
>nor is it strictly truthful.

Why should something that is, in all practicality, unviable be encouraged?
How would warning people that few (if any IMO) succeed on frutarianism be
dishonest?

>As long as there are successes then
>this is a sign that something is going right.

This is absurd logic. If ten thousand people attempt to ski through a
revolving door and one succeeds, is that a sign that folks should be
encouraged to ski through a revolving door? Is that a sign that something
is "right"? Let's even imagine that the one fellow wasn't just lucky but
made a breakthrough in how to ski through revolving doors, that s/he can
teach other people to do so. Why should anyone want to ski through a
revolving door?

>Many people warned
>against listening to a guy who claimed that the world was a globe
>rather than a flat disc.

Geography as nutrition, eh? OK, lets go with it. Many folks have traveled
to the edge of fringe dietary (fruitarianism) and fell off the edge of the
sea. They come back to share their experiences and folks like you make it a
point of ego to say they are ignorant (they don't know how to do it
properly), that they have no credibility, and they are a "joke". And your
proof? Some fellow named Helmut proves it all. Doesn't that strike you as a
bit silly, Alan?

>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).

Alan, like it or not, you don't speak for Europe any more than Lynton
speaks for the USA. It seems that every other flame on a mailing list (or
worse, on a newsgroup) has to do with nationalism, with one country's
citizen trashing the other's. As far as I can remember you are the first to
do it on this list. It casts you in a very poor light.

>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.

But if there are thousands of herpes success stories I would imagine there
would be a list in their own language. And then there are the millions of
food combining succeeders out there too. ;)

>.. 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.

You are the only one I have ever seen here who perseverates on "national
difficulties" and "politics". If you'd check out the archives you'd have a
better sense of what is going on here--as well as proof that you are in no
sense the first European to share their time in posts.

Cheers,
Kirt

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]