So, just wondering what people think about the 30 Bananas a Day stuff, or the ex-paleo Grok who've all gone straight fruit-only diets. It's actually quite interesting. I have lots of issues with it, but there are also tons of benefits. Mainly, I'd be concerned with how boring it might get, and I'd also be thinking about the fact that just about everything I'd be eating would have had to travel many hundreds of miles.
I sort of looked, didn't see this discussed yet, but I might suck at searching..
Low fat raw vegan? They are fighting evolution drivers. Their bodies will digest themselves (autophagy). Some may thrive short to medium term. Long term, who knows? Many will have to supplement. Some will become ex-LFRV. Why not enjoy fruit as part of a nutritionally complete diet?
Explicitly, w.r.t 30BAD - they are idealogically incoherent, militant in attitude, authoritarian and philosophically inflexible. They ignore science and champion misinformation. Like anything that can't or won't adapt, 30BAD will not survive.
Some of the 80-10-10 people will become us. I did. Some of the philosophy is surprisingly the same. Many 80-10-10 eaters are intending to eat an evolutionarily appropriate diet - they are just misinformed about what that actually is. I will say that eating that way gave me an excellent appreciation for eating more simply and a love of leafy greens. Surprisingly it wasn't boring - it sort of reset my taste buds to appreciate more natural food.
Personally, I felt FANTASTIC eating that way - for the 1st 2 months. Then it was all down hill. But - you learn to clean out the crap - the nasty O6 oils, the grains etc. So, I try not to get in arguments with them - give them time and many will do a bit more research and come around.
ADDED: In no way am I suggesting that 80-10-10 is a good idea. I'm sure the extreme sugar load was horrible for me. And notice that I felt good for all of 2 months. Don't do it. But be nice to the people, don't deliberately antagonize them. They might be sitting down with a nice steak or salmon next to you next year.
In the end look at their motivations and arguments. They argue that "their diet is perfect for all humans, perfect for the environment, doesn't kill animals, is the absolute best diet you can possibly eat in every single way."
I don't think my diet is perfect in every way and it's hard to discern what's best for others. I am very suspicious of people who claim one perfect diet, particularly if they are incredibly ignorant of ecology, anthropology, anatomy, zoology, economics, agriculture, biochemistry, genetics, nutritional science, and horticulture.
I think it's possible for some people to do well on such a diet, particularly healthy adult males. I guess it's working for CastleGrok now, but he's not militantly strict and hasn't been doing it that long. I wish him and all humans well in their experiments in finding diets best for themselves. I accept the limits of human knowledge and the diversity of our species and don't feel qualified to say what's the best diet ever, but I think based on logic we can rule out this diet as some "natural human species diet."
I will disagree with most here and say that it's technically "paleo" in certain circumstances. For example, the Hadza have a 2-month stretch when a particular berry (undushipi aka Cordia gharaf) comes into season that totally dominates their diets (~80%). That's a pretty substantial stretch of massive fruit consumption that would have likely occurred for many HGs in the tropics throughout our evolution. When a relatively easy food source presents itself, foragers will exploit it to the furthest extent that they can, even though the berry season doesn't necessarily coincide with a decline in game or anything that would push them toward it. The lure of fructose is also strong. For example, when asked to rank their preference for everything they eat, honey is the most sought-after for the Hadza.
That being said, such a diet is terrible for health, even if the remainder is meat and fat. The number of deficiencies that would develop would be large and would place someone very far from optimal human health. You could stay alive on it for a while, but it would likely wreak havoc on many systems. 30 bananas a day in particular is a fast-track to reactive hypoglycemia.
Many fruitarians point to chimps as a reason why we should eat in a similar way, and indeed the common ancestor that we share with chimps was likely as frugivorous as they are now, so we do have a good portion of our (somewhat recent) evolution that is consistent with this practice. The problem with this reasoning is that 5-7 million years have elapsed since that point and we are not the same beasts now as we were.
I just want to add something like.
The gist: some cardiologist says that carnivores do not get atherosclerosis and only herbivores get atherosclerosis. Therefore we get 7 pages and over a hundred excited fruitarians who believe that they have proved that humans are herbivores. Not a single word of dissent.
I have done a fair bit of research on atherosclerosis and usually I come across animal studies...in rats. Rats are omnivorous. Rats clearly get atherosclerosis. Ergo, an OMNIVORE that is not a human can get atherosclerosis. Sigh.
It may be premature to say "don't be a fruit vegan their brains are mush, they can't think critically and live in a world of false dichotomy, but perhaps it is the lack of critical thought that produces the fruit vegan.
Either way I wouldn't want to be associated with these people.
I think all-fruit diets are masking some sort of starvation diet or something. Just doesn't seem like a person can be healthy long term on that diet without intravenous vitamin supplements. I am guessing when they get older their bones are gonna be brittle and their muscles wasted no matter what they might be like today. Also I wonder what % of their day is spent on the toilet eating all those bananas.
Edit - I just want to add another thought I just had. One reason people probably feel great initially on the all-fruit diet is that they completely drop gluten, legumes, O6 oils, dairy products. Just giving up grains probably does amazing things for people without them realizing, but its no way as good as eating a natural paleo-style diet that has all the vitamins and nutrients the human body needs.
Kitavans and Okinawa people did very well on diets with tons of vegetables or fruits but also a decent amount of fish, meat and animal fat. On the other hand, I do not think "fruits only" is a good choice, long term, not at all...
I could go into the reasons why a high fat diet containing meat is healthier than a low fat diet without but all that really needs to be said is...
Aahahaha! Girly men girly men.
I think that macronutrient restriction (low carb diets can fit this description) are a band-aide for poor health. They both reduce fasting insulin. But I would like to see Monkey boys eat a large steak, a side of creamed coconut, a large sweet potato and a bunch of fruit every day and not get sick. I can do it with excellent health and energy. They start crying about fat more than 10% of calories. It is a crutch for the weak and sub-optimal.
To me, it looks like they're trying to reach altered states of consciousness with diet...the real food sources of those states having been outlawed...and I think everything they say about why they eat that way is rationalization.
p.s. Also, people have always used starvation (fasting) to reach altered states of consciousness.
Paleo + Fruitarianism combined? 9 Answers