Hi Loren,

you said:
>When you speak of a fruitarian diet, I don't know if you mean fruit only, or
>substantially fruit.  I am a 100% raw vegan nutritionist that eats about 90%
>fruit, and two or three salads/week, as do many of my clients and students.
>I have been all-raw for over 9 years, and have been almost all-fruit for
>about 7.  I feel great, am perfectly healthy, and quite strong.

I personally take "fruit" as the fruit of a tree which contains a lot of
water mostly. So "fruit" to me includes apples, pears, plums, cherrys,
avocados, but   n o t   walnuts (a nut, not a fruit), tomatoes (no tree),
all of the vegetables, mushrooms, greens and of course no eggs and animal
products (not even honey).

Generally I find on
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview3h.shtml#fruitarian fallacy
the following, written by Ward Nicholson:

|Well, first there is the problem of defining just what you mean by the
|words "fruit" and "fruitarian." There is a lot of gamesmanship,
|sleight-of-hand, and word redefinition that goes on among fruitarian
|advocates to redefine "fruit" away from the common definition (soft, pulpy,
|sweet, juicy fruits from tree or vine) so that it includes the so-called
|"vegetable fruits" like peppers, cucumbers, tomatoes and the like, or
|"nut-fruits" and so on, so as to broaden what is considered "fruitarian."
|In a botanical sense, these foods can be considered fruits, and thus--if we
|stretch things a bit--perhaps "technically" permissible in what might be
|called a "fruitarian" diet.
|
|The problem, however, is that most fruitarians don't even stop there either.
|Most go further and allow or even specifically recommend "greens" and/or
|"green-leafed vegetables" as essential, and of course neither of these
|qualify as fruit even in the botanical sense. Once you get this far, any
|sense of integrity about what "fruit" really means has been sacrificed to
|the realm of fast-talking slipperiness.

So I have given my understanding of "fruit" and give back the question
to you: what does "fruit" mean to you? Since you mention salads, I guess,
veggies are also "fruit" to you. Well, then we are comparing apples and
pears here.

>As a human being, and therefore, an anthropoid primate, our bodies are
>perfectly suited for a fruit diet.  Not only is fruit loaded with necessary
>sugar and vitamins, it is also second to veggies as a source of minerals, and
>is the best source of enzymes.

What is missing: appropriate amounts of minerals, e.g. Na, Cl and Mg and
useful amounts of fat (avocado being the only exception).

>Trying tell any of the apes the fruit is only for detoxing.  A 500 pound
>fruit-eating gorilla is 20 times stronger than the average man.

...and has to search for his food all day long. And consumes a hell of
a stack of fruits and veggies since all of them have a low caloric density.
I prefer the living style of the remaining old human tribes: two or three
hours per day for searching for food. Not even this time I need to spend
because I can skip the search. My food has a much higher caloric density
than that of a gorilla. Therefore two meals per day are sufficient and
I do not need to eat all day long.
Also my brain is triple in size than that of a gorilla and I    h a v e
to nourish it with fat and other foods high in caloric density. For this
reason humans are unique among all other animals on this planet and diets
can be compared only to a certain degree.

>We too, can
>easily build all the strength we need eating a fruit-based diet.

Maybe this is true for you but there are dozens of others who found out
that they emaciated on a fruitarian diet rapidly. I know several of them
personally.

>The experience of one, or many people failing to thrive on this, or any other
>diet, does not necessarily say much about the diet, as the most important
>factor is not the quality of the food, but the ability of the system to
>efficiently and effectively assimilate and use it.

I think that it is possible for almost every human to get back a strong
digestion. But the quality of the food is most important to rebuild a good
digestion and afterwards to hold this level. So I would put the stress on
the quality of the foods.

>Many people are so toxic
>that the transition can be difficult and painful.  For some people, it can
>take years to become clean enough for the system to operate on such a light
>diet, after so many years of eating a typically much denser diet.

I know this type of arguments. "You have to become clean first" And then
people try and try harder and try even harder and still fail, even after
several years. The section
"Potential explanation for digestive difficulties in long-term fruitarians"
in above URL explains, why fruitarianism    r u i n s   your digestion
and you will never be able to subsist on it.

>Fasting is the quickest and most efficient way to allow the system to cleanse
>itself naturally, and I have yet to see a single person not respond favorably
>-- eventually -- if they're willing to give it enough time to cleanse the
>body.  When they do, the results are usually a quite amazing level of health,
>vitality, strength, flexibility, and mental clarity.

And I have seen so much people who have fasted dozens of times and still
are unable to subsist on fruits or even on a raw food vegan diet (which is
much more than a fruitarian diet). Sorry, I can't agree with you here.

A technical note to all: Pleeeeeease omit fullquotes of the text you are
responding to at the end of your text. This wastes bandwith and nobody
reads these fullquotes again. Quote only the text you are referring to
and write your comments below the quote. Thank you.

Best instinctive regards,

Stefan