I appreciate Bob's and Ward's advice on the consumption of fruit.  I've
started taking a "fruit diary" this week to see how much I actually eat,
and to average it out.  I also have some observations.

When I wrote that I eat a LOT of fruit, I realized that "a LOT" is a rather
subjective quantity.  Before I read "Fit for Life" a year and a half ago, I
would only eat 1 or maybe 2 pieces of fruit a day (and the rest of what I
ate was mostly junk--was I better off then or am I better off now?), so,
personally,  I would consider 5 pieces of fruit a LOT (compared to
before), and there are others who might think that 5 pieces is an average
amount.  I've never eaten a whole bunch of bananas in a day, let alone in
a single meal.  (The one possible exception is a day last summer when I
was very rushed and driving all over the place, with no time to eat, so I
think I ate 8 bananas that day, but that was the exception, not the rule.)
I am considering cutting back on my fruit consumption, and I think my diet
is between 25 and 50% fruit.  I'll have to pay attention to be sure.

I have a few more questions.  What is meant exactly by the statement
"our fruit today is sweeter than that of our ancestors"?  Exactly how
was this determined?  What are the criteria for "sweeter"?  How would
they find fruit from 100 years ago and test it?  Isn't fruit inherently
sweet?  Is someone suggesting what would seem to be a national (or
worldwide) conspiracy to make all fruit sweeter?  That seems a bit
far-fetched.  And if the fruit is sweeter now than it was, say, 50 or 100
years ago, couldn't that just be the natural evolution of fruit?

Sorry to be appear rude about this, but I'm just very curious about this
"conspiracy" theory.  I don't want to argue with anybody, I'm just trying to
learn all I can about a new lifestyle that I will (potentially) be following for
a long time (maybe the rest of my life).

Thanks for your ideas.

Shawn