Ward Nicholson wrote:

> Rex, the appropriateness (or not) of my earlier analogy to Brix in soft
> drinks aside...

Well, it was silly enough to keep me laughing for a while.  :)


> That "Brix = Quality" may be true to the extent it measures the quality of
> *individual* food(s).

You summed it up in a nutshell.  In addition, it has the major side benefit of
getting the serious dietary student away from wasting time on such asinine
jokes as USDA tables of nutrients, like publication #456.


> That much [about quality] I have no problem with accepting...

Great!


> But I stand by the main point of my previous post
> that the axiom "Brix = Quality" is at the same time a half-truth: It
> doesn't take into account the proportions and amounts of various foods in
> the diet, nor the fact that certain foods will never be as good sources of
> certain nutrients as others because of genetic constraints governing each
> different kind of plant's growth. (Or that certain foods may on the other
> hand promote excesses of other substances in the diet, if the food or food
> class is made the primary staple.)

Actually, I tend to disagree with what you're saying.  For instance, I think
high-quality food is not only that for having more of certain nutrients, but
also for having much, much, *less* of toxic materials.  The lowly orange is a
fabulous example of that concept.

>
> Brix also doesn't address whether the nutrient array in a single food or
> class of foods (whether high or low Brix) is appropriate--when made the
> mainstay of a diet at the expense of other foods--toward meeting a
> sufficient/ optimum overall balance of nutrients in an entire diet. Put to
> the point of the absurdly obvious: a fruit is a fruit is a fruit, not a
> fish or a nut or a seed; and the nutrient profile of a fruit is never going
> to give you the nutrient profile of a cut of fish, for example, which
> contains such things as EFAs or vitamin B-12 that fruits don't to any
> meaningful degree, no matter what their Brix.

Smoke---pure and simple smoke: I feel confidant that you'll change your tune if
you ever have charge of feeding animals.


> And to expect that a food like fruits, when overemphasized in the diet, can
> compensate for the displacement of other foods that contain essential
> nutrients, or more precisely sufficient amounts of them--ones that fruits
> don't contain in appreciable quantities no matter what their Brix--is simply
> absurd.

Remember, I haven't claimed this.  I'm not a fruitarian.  I enjoy all foods.
If it's so damn necessary to label me, label me this way:

---I contend that if you had, say, two groups of wacko fruitarians and let me
experimentally control their diet, then...

1) the group fed poor quality fruit would have innumerable problems and,

2) the group fed high-quality fruit would find any problems much longer
delayed.

Could the delay extend indefinitely?  There are some on this list who say, "No
Way!"  However, they seem to have reached their conclusions without factoring
in quality.  I'm merely reserving judgment until the experiment is actually
conducted.

>
> Considering Brix in a vacuum like this is ridiculous.

100% agreed.  Can you agree that claiming "fruitarianism must fail" in a vacuum
(i.e., without factoring in quality) is similarly ridiculous?


> It seems to have completely escaped attention here that Brix is an isolated
> criterion that focuses solely on *foods* while neglecting the necessary
> accompanying attention to assessing what the *body's* nutritional needs and
> requirements are in relation to all of this.

Your point has not escaped my attention.  I just want quality included.


> One wouldn't speculate about feeding a cow a diet of peanuts and raisins and
> then expect others to take seriously the speculation that it might be able to
> thrive on such a diet rather than the diet of grass like it was designed to.

Ward, I truly think it would be wise for you and a few others to avoid comments
about feeding animals.


> Brix concerns are tangential in that kind of situation, which parallels the
> human situation with fruitarianism. All available scientific evidence on
> human evolution as well as physiology indicates the human body isn't designed
> to thrive on just fruits no matter what their quality, no matter what some
> crank-science (and I use the term descriptively here) theorizers on the Forum
> may claim.

I was booted off the "Forum" for a few weeks, so can't claim no one said "fruit
is enough," but I will say I don't remember what you suggested as being said.
My contributions there, if anyone is interested, run about the same as my say
here: "Quality *does* matter, so quit quoting from those stupid food
adulterer-inspired tables of nutrients."

>
> In the end, however, the degree to which high Brix might be able to
> compensate for a narrow diet is something that has to be evaluated
> empirically/ experimentally by looking at the actual results people get.

Thanks Ward, we're in 110% agreement now.

>
> Thus, if you can't accept that fruitarians have for 30-40 years tried the
> diet to the best of their ability with few if any successes (those
> investigated virtually invariably turn out to be false), and you truly are
> asserting no one has ever had access to good-enough quality fruit in all
> that time to constitute a fair test despite concerted efforts like Tom's
> (as one example) and others, then your position appears all the more
> unreasonable.

Ward, please hear me gently say that I see myself as 'not convinced," rather
than "unreasonable."  Much of my doubt comes about from being privy to
information about animals thriving on better quality feed and sickening on poor
quality feeds that *looked* identical.  Remember, our eyes have also
degenerated as far as helping us select better quality foods.  Most of us can
be fooled by simple tricks like the applied waxes and colors the food
adulterers use.

>
> Your stated position is that people on the list aren't considering enough
> that quality can make a big difference in diet. I disagree.

Suit yourself---is there anything in the archives about "quality" before I
started complaining?


> (Also, no, I wasn't equating Brix with sugar content...

Thanks Ward, this Brix=sugar falsity is obviously a touchy point with me.


> my point was that fruits are a relatively high-sugar food regardless of
> specific Brix level, and therefore skew the diet considerably because of the
> sugar overload in a predominantly fruitarian diet, among other serious
> imbalances of fruitarian diets.)

Easy---we don't want to slip back into dogma.   :)

>
> Also, I think it's probably safe to say that regardless of its status as a
> convenient whipping boy for some on the list, one reason why people are
> focusing on fruitarianism in response to your contentions is that it is a
> diet with a lengthy (and abysmal) track record--one that can be used to
> clearly gauge the validity of the idea that Brix or quality in a single
> class of foods might be able to compensate for lack of other important
> foods in the diet. I don't doubt that the idea, generally, has some
> validity.

You know, when I started this response I thought we were in disagreement.  I'm
now wondering if we're so far apart after all.  BTW, I'm still waiting for
someone to show me where I embraced fruitarianism.


> But the key point is that its validity depends on how far, and to
> what extremes, one goes with the idea. If you can't see that fruitarianism
> takes it considerably past the bounds of validity no matter how good the
> quality of fruit, then again, you appear impossible to reason with.
>

Aw come on, now---"impossible?"  An independent observer might think you just
spent a considerable amount of energy putting together a coherent response
quite unlikely to be directed toward an "impossible" person.

[most of an unsavory why-don't-you-go-somewhere-else suggestion snipped to end]

Regards,
Rex Harrill