On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:59:52 -0400, Cooley, Brad 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 15:22:18 -0400, Padraig Hogan 
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>I'm not a regular of this list but I'm absolutely SICKENED by some of the 
stuff 
>>that's been said here. 
>
>Eat a big ole slab of raw meat...you will start to feel better.  ;)
>
>

I never used to take ham growing up even though it was the only source of 
meat we had, I just didn't like it. I must admit that there were times when I 
loved chicken and to a lesser extent even sausages... but I just keep away 
from them and do vastly better. (I do take fish sometimes though). 


>>
>>1. The idea that fruit are somehow artificially selected to have more sugars 
>is 
>>an extremely poor argument and it just doesn't bear out in reality. M
>
>Yes, it does (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeding for starters). 
>

Well like I acknowledged, there may be an argument for it. But you're talking 
about only a small difference if at all. It's not really consequential. 

>>2. You're fat because you eat processed food, not because of fruit. 
>
>One is fat because of a defect of fat metabolism related to insulin resistance 
>and hyperinsulenemia.  Insulin is secreted principally due to rising blood sugar 
>levels which is usually caused by carbohydrate consumption.  The body does 
>not care whether the carbohydrate is from a snickers bar or an apple.
>

Then how come I am far fatter when eating bread and other sugary products? 
Yes, through the years I've lapsed, and always dropped weight hugely on raw 
foods. 

An apple has nowhere near the amount of sugar as a snicker's bar. :) You'd 
have to eat two to three apples or more depending on the type of apple. If 
you ate that amount of fibre with your snickers bar, then maybe your satiation 
would be similar. 

>Many of the tiny amounts of calories in 
>>fruit pass straight through as Richard Wrangham has shown recently.  
>
>This statement makes absolutely no sense.
>

Well you're obviously not a native speaker of English then. Rarely, fruit comes 
out completely undigested and you can visibly see that it's not digested at all, 
most of the time you only partially absorb the calories, while with cooked you 
get the full thing. Richard Wrangham has shown that many of fruit's calories 
are not absorbed, what part of that don't you understand???

>>3. I accept that maybe some people really, really can't eat 100% fruit and 
>>become as light as they want on it. 
>
>No one can eat 100% fruit and expect to be healthy or live for very long.

I don't understand how anyone can make such a statement. You can be a 
fruitarian and take supplements to make up for any deficits caused by 
agriculture. 

It's true that our ancestors had more protein than in just fruit, their main diet 
by far was fruit, then vegetables, then eggs/insects/fish. Meat very rare thing 
for them... and if this list has hijacked the term "paleo" for some kind of 40% 
red meat/cancer diet (as some controversial books have), then I think that's 
disgraceful.