Stefan:

> Concercing the skin of fruits: for  citrus fruits I use the skin as a
> strong test for my instinct. If I bite into the skin and it gives an ugly
> bitter taste I don't continue to eat the fruit. Of course it would have
> been possible to peel it but this is a fraud you do to yourself.
> A pomelo for example is nearly impossible to open using only your hands.
> So in former times I assume you used your teeth and tasted the
> skin if you liked that or not. And if it was ugly enough (pomelos can be
> very ugly) I am sure, that you would have dropped it immediately.
> I have stopped peeling fruits and vegetables as much as possible.
>

Maybe pomelos are not easy to peel, but it is not impossible at all. I
find much easier to peel a pomelo than to crack almonds or Brazil nuts
with my teeth. Mangosteens can be opened by hands too.

And keep in mind that apes peel bananas, and that humans have been
using tools for millions of years (stone tools at the beginning). It
is not unconceivable that humans used to open some fruits with stone
tools, to eat the flesh and spit the seeds (but they didn't eat
papayas, since it is an american fruit).


> Another consideration: There are fruits, where the skin is so thin and it
> adheres so strongly to the pulpa that it is impossible to peel the fruit
> without using tools. This is the case for fruits and vegetables. Some
> examples: sapote negro, sapotilla, kohlrabi, potato, apple, pear, carot,
> apricot,...

And do you eat carrots and potatoes with the dirt, because in ancient
times they couldn't wash it under the tap?

> The same argument applies here too. In former times you weren't able to
> peel these things so you must have eaten the skin. And when the taste of
> the skin became ugly you will have stopped eating.
>
> If I am in doubt whether a certain technique is in accordance to instinctiv=
> e
> nutrition I always try to imagine, what someone living in former times
> (millions of years ago) would have done and could have done.
>

Your attitude is probably the safest one, but consider the following:
most the defense system of the fruit is in the skin, which contains
toxic substances, so the skin is less useful to the body than the
flesh. When we bite into a fruit, your mouth contains a mixing of the
skin and the flesh, and the pleasantness is an average between both
parts. At some point, the benefit of eating the flesh balances the
harm done by the skin: it is the point of zero pleasure
(instinctive stop). Imagine a hypothetic fruit whose flesh exactly
contains the nutrients you need, but whose skin is extremely toxic:
would you refuse to peel it because your ancestors weren't able to do so?

I am not sure it is necessary to imitate our ancestors too closely
(and to be even more imitative than apes), but I admit that eating the
skin as much as possible has some advantages:
 -It often prevents overeating fruits
 -It probably brings other nutrients, and thus help balance the diet.


Best regards (and welcome to you and Karl),

Jean-Louis.