Axel wrote: >but what about the supposed eleterious (=A1!) effects >of the unnaturally high sugar content of the fruits we have >access to? What do you think about this? Bob > Avery told me a few days ago that a general recomendation is 1.25 > pounds of fruit a day. For me this very low, and in fact I had been > eating maybe 4 or 5 pounds of mostly sweet fruit for a year or so. Now > am told that this is not good, I am not being a good to my body, > too much sugar, etc. >What other food would you include as an acceptable calorie > source? You don't necessarily need to replace these fruit calories with something else, the idea is to eliminate them no matter what the source. Any food intake beyond the minimal requirements will cause problems, whether those problems show up as clear diseases or take years to appear as cancer or shortened lifespan. >Again: what about the excessive sugar content? See my other post about the glycogen storage pool. >Do you think even the excess of protein derived from eating > plenty of greens is damaging? Yes, I have no doubt. > Is this the same for other primates? Do they have >low protein requirements too? Because if gorillas do, then > eating all those greens is going to shorten their lifespans. I assume that is correct. They eat loads of calories, & much of them are in the form of protein. They would live much longer if they got closer to almost a starvation diet. >One last question: what would be worst: the excessive sugar > contentof current civilized fruits or the excess protein intake > associatedwith the reduction of the fruit intake? ( I vote for the > second one) I agree. The excess sugars can be eliminated much easier (see Bohdi's long post on protein). But sugars are bad news too. They cause glycosylation of proteins in the body, which is essentially like the brown, caramel color generated when foods are cooked. This can really gum up the works in the body. I assume long fasts zero in on this stuff in an attempt to evict it. --Doug Schwartz [log in to unmask]