Hi Alan,

> > Fruits are usually poor in minerals compared to other
> > foods. Fruit from Orkos is perhaps more rich in minerals, thereby
> > delays deficiency problems.
> >
> Which deficiencies are you thinking of? I ask this because I keep
> reading that the less minerals a food contains, the better they
> seem to be taken up. I will quote on this aspect when I come
> across it again.

Well, if a food contains no minerals at all, no matter how well they
are taken up, it will never provide enough. It's like the Gruyere
Paradox: the more cheese you have, the more holes; the more holes, the
less cheese you get.

Now, if you want a comparison (in mg per 100 grams of food)

                      Ca    Fe     Zn
--------------------------------------
Apples (with skin)    7    0.18   0.04
Oranges (Florida)    43    0.09   0.08
Bananas               6    0.31   0.16

Lettuce (Romaine)    36    1.10   0.25
Broccoli             48    0.88   0.40
--------------------------------------
Avg. fruit           19    0.19   0.09
Avg. vegs            42    0.99   0.32
--------------------------------------
Ratio veg/fruit      2:1    5:1   7:2

> > I think several people on this list have experienced dental problems
> > on a high-fruit diet.
> >
> It has not been reported to my knowledge here in Germany. There
> could be problems with fillings of course.

I don't think fillings can cause tooth enamel erosion, gum receding,
etc.

> Whereas this is obviously true, I see no reason for lying to
> myself (what do I have to gain?) for eating my non 100% fruitarian
> diet, and I see no reason why Helmut Wandmaker et al should lie
> to themselves either. In the U.S.A. and the other English-speaking
> countries one can become a millionaire selling books, for example,
> but not in Germany (if you are lucky you may manage to gain a
> small profit after paying the publisher).

If Helmut Wandmaker et al. have become famous in raw/vegetarian
circles, it could be a reason "good" enough not to reveal every
problem they have encountered, or not being honest about their
diet. Now, I am not claiming it is the case, just saying it is a
possibility, and that dishonesty is not uncommon in health gurus.

> > I find that,
> > whenever I eat predominantly vegan, and little calorie-dense foods, my
> > weight drops to 60 kg in a few weeks, and could even become lower, but
> > then I eat concentrated foods again in order to gain weight.
> >
> What happens when you eat a diet based roughly on the
> daily intakes of the chimps?

You omitted to precise the unit (are these percentages by weight,
calories or feeding time?). In any case, considering that 3% animal
food corresponds to no more than one meal/week, the chimpanzee type
diet has roughly the same effect on my weight as a raw vegan diet,
that is my weigh is normal (65 kg for 178 cm) if I eat calorie-dense
foods (lots of sweet fruit, avocados, nuts), and could be 60 kg or
lower if I ate like you do (i.e. mostly low-fat vegetables at dinner).

You say yourself that your weight is lower than it used to be on SAD:
in my case, if my weight became 10 kg lower, it would be about
55 kg... that is, essentially bones and skin. You can't say that
calories don't count at all. Calorie-restricters, anorexics, people in
concentration camps, people in third world countries are thin or
emaciated because they lack calories. I consider that eating the way
you do (fruit at breakfast and low-fat veggies at dinner) is a form of
calorie-restriction. Emaciation is not a problem for you because your
body has a tendency to be overweight, but it can be for other
people; in addition, ask people whether they could eat a fruit-only
breakfast and nothing until 6 p.m., and most of them would answer that
they can't deal with _hunger_.


--Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>