------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 21 Mar 2001 21:21:42 -0500
From:    Diane <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Honey & fruit continued

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:28:04 -0800
From:    Wally Day <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Honey and (dried) fruit

> Diane asked if paleo people ate honey or dried
> fruit.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the article now.
It was about a hunter-gathere tribe that ate honey on
an almost daily basis. Can't recall if it was Native
American or African or Australian. What I do remember,
since it was so different from other cultures, is that
they spent most of their time and energy pursuing
their honey "fix". Apparently, honey was so prized, it
was even used as a form of "money" (like gold for us)
in their barter system.>>


Date:    Wed, 21 Mar 2001 20:39:12 -0800
From:    dave skinner <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Honey & fruit continued

>This is surprising even to me and as you can tell I'm a bit skeptical of
>this low (and no) carb mania.  I just happen to think that it's based upon
a
>lot of skewed and incomplete information.

there is no need to be skeptical, the proof is out there.>>

No proof, but bits and pieces of information selectively presented.

  just think about
how sweet a crab apple is, or a gooseberry, or a currant, or a cranberry,
or consider the size of a wild strawberry.  I assume the *native* fruits of
other cultures are also just as tart and/or small.>>

Obviously you didn't read a quote I read on naturalfood hub which questions
this, so I'll supply it again:

"In the foothills of the mountain areas of...Turkestan, there are also
forests of fruit trees. In some regions walnuts (Juglans regia), as well as
apples, form the entire woods...The area of wild apples is extensive. In the
Caucasus the fruits of the wild apple are fairly small, but those in
Turkestan are comparatively large. Individual trees there bear fruit which
is not inferior in quality to that of cultivated forms. Some are of
astonishingly large size, and the trees are exceptionally productive. The
whole spectrum of transition from the typically small, sour apple to the
cultivated, perfectly edible type is found. Among wild apples, Malus pumila
with purple-red coloring of the flesh occurs. Here, the whole process of
development from wild apples to [human] acceptable forms, by hybridization
between the species accompanied by mutation, took place without the
intervention of man." - F. Roach, 'Cultivated Fruits of Britain'

About berries.  More selective evidence, usually giving blueberries as an
example.  How about raspberries, huckleberries and mulberries?

They are much sweeter and not necessarily smaller.  They grow rampantly in
NY, NJ and CT (and probaby other places as well). They grow fat and huge.
You can gorge yourself sick on them.  They make the "cultivated" sorts seem
like wax in comparison.  I never eat those cruddy waxy berries from a box.
They are garbage.

In short--there is no proof that wild fruits are in general inferior to
cultivated.  Only some wild fruits.  The ones that we know of.  Who know?
Perhaps there were dozens of varieties 25 thou years ago that died out.  Do
you know for sure???

And what about the honey-heavy diet of the pygmies?

I bring it up because this group is about fitness.  There is, as you
yourself have shown, a bias against carbs that is completely UNSUPPORTED by
hard evidence.

I believe--suspect--surmise--that people can live on a fairly carb heavy
diet and be reasonably fit--although not optimally--if they are working hard
enough.

I am, btw, a meat-lover, and I agree that grains, breads, baked goods and
soda pop are very bad for humans.  I simply disagree on principle with
pseudo-science masquerading as the real thing. Comparing the physiological
effects of a piece of fruit with the massive doses of that powerful plant
extract called white sugar that Westerners blithely drug themselves with is
madness, and a lie.

Diane