Are we meat eaters or vegetarians?

[Edward Smith]

Some recent blog posts by Dr. Eades showing our meating eating ancestry:

Part 1

Part 2

[Ryan Libke]

As far as I understand it, humans are neither exclusively carnivorous nor exclusively herbivorous. We are omnivorous. This trait is modernly demonstrated, and is demonstrated in the archeological record. It is possible that a human can survive on a diet entirely of animal tissue, or an a vegan diet. It is more difficult for a human to thrive in the extremes, but some manage to do o.k. The real advantage to our digestive system is its adaptibility. We can actually survive on varied diets. Some of them are better than others for longevity, disease prevention, and quality of life. It is becoming apparent that the modern American diet is not very good for us, that is for sure.

[Blairbob]

while many primates are vegetarian, it is still thought they get some animal protein from insects on the leaves.

from what I remember, the chimps are closer genetically to us than gorillas though I think orangutangs are closer to humans than gorillas. orangs are not pure vegetarians either though they are very close to us genetically but not as much as chimps (though there is some controversy that states orangs are closer than chimps).

what would be interesting is to see whether the chimps or orangs could subsist on higher levels of protein or fat and less fruit like us.

while I've been using the Masai and Eskimos as evidence of mostly animal diets, I have across some studies that say these peoples suffer from heart and blood vessel conditions because of too much fat/cholesterol. they may not suffer from the diseases that civilized societies do but these other conditions get them.

[mata_leao]

Recent find on the evolutionary ancestry of humans.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... midus.html

[SamSpaiser]

Orangutans are, of the great apes, least related to humans. Our last common ancestor was Sivapethicus, which was the last common ancestor of orangs and humans, about 10 million years ago. In contrast, Ouranopithecus was the last common ancestor of chimps and humans, 6 million years ago. Chimps have adapted to be ripe fruit specialists, and in order to thrive must eat a diet primarily of ripe fruit and vegetable matter. Of course, around 1% of their diet is from ants, and < 1% from bush meat, and then maybe another 2% from nuts/seeds/bark, but around 90% from fruit (calorie-wise), and 5% from the vegetable matter. Gorillas are second closest to humans (unless you are counting bonobos, who would be second), and they eat much more vegetable matter, especially the highland mountain gorillas, upwards of 60%. To put these animals on a high fat, high protein diet, of which they are not adapted to, you'd probably start seeing a spike of degenerative diseases, a similar thing to what humans are experiencing. In my experience, health seems to be compromised when the percentage of calories from fat consumed exceeds 10%, and when protein exceeds 10%. Any time a species eats a diet other than it is adapted to it places a great burden on a body and to expect anything other than optimal would be silly, to put it kindly.

[Gregor]

I don't know if you are very familiar with good clean food? With such a dieta you can go much above your numbers and you will be more healthy then with those numbers.

I have perfect blood test with 2,5 g of protei per kg of body weight, alot of EPA/DHA (Omega 3) GLA fatty acids, omega 9 from oliv oil, fast carbo hydrates, slow...It's all about clean food and timming with carbo hydrates along with vitamines and minerals.

[Blairbob]

So you are stating 10%fat, 10% protein, 80% carbohydrate

[Edward Smith]

Orangutans are, of the great apes, least related to humans. Our last common ancestor was Sivapethicus, which was the last common ancestor of orangs and humans, about 10 million years ago. In contrast, Ouranopithecus was the last common ancestor of chimps and humans, 6 million years ago. Chimps have adapted to be ripe fruit specialists, and in order to thrive must eat a diet primarily of ripe fruit and vegetable matter. Of course, around 1% of their diet is from ants, and < 1% from bush meat, and then maybe another 2% from nuts/seeds/bark, but around 90% from fruit (calorie-wise), and 5% from the vegetable matter. Gorillas are second closest to humans (unless you are counting bonobos, who would be second), and they eat much more vegetable matter, especially the highland mountain gorillas, upwards of 60%. To put these animals on a high fat, high protein diet, of which they are not adapted to, you'd probably start seeing a spike of degenerative diseases, a similar thing to what humans are experiencing. In my experience, health seems to be compromised when the percentage of calories from fat consumed exceeds 10%, and when protein exceeds 10%. Any time a species eats a diet other than it is adapted to it places a great burden on a body and to expect anything other than optimal would be silly, to put it kindly.

Did you read the second article? Apes have funnel shaped rib cages to allow for their bigger (than humans) digestive systems which allows them to better break down plant matter, humans have a more cylindrical rib cage because we do not have the digestive system to support such a diet . There's also the fossil evidence that shows meat consumption in humans far exceeding 20% calories from fat and protein in conjunction with good health.

There's empirical studies of modern hunter-gatherers getting greater than 50% of calories from animal sources and they display almost none of the diseases of western civilisation. Take the Inuit, they consume almost no calories from plant matter during the winter and display great health.

If you believe we should eat like apes, you are suggesting we should not be eating grains either. Don't get me wrong, I don't think humans have adapted to grains but do you eat grains?

Ed

[Nic Scheelings]

I do find it a little funny that u would state all the genetic relationships between the great apes as if they were facts. Are u a professor of anthropology? Like Blairbob said I'm sure there is a lot of controversy over which is most closely related to humans and as for exactly when they split off, well those are theories that are really just a best guess and can't be trotted out as facts.

Not trying to come off like a jerk

[SamSpaiser]

Demus, I hear you loud and clear, I'm skeptical of just about everything that comes in front of my face, and I'm always asking questions. I don't state anything that I've said as fact, but just what I've concluded thus far. And I'm not saying that I'm right and this is the only way and everyone must bow down to me. Heck, everyone is entitled to an opinion and should carry a unique opinion, or what do they have to bring to the table for discussion, right? I'm not a professor of anthropology but study it heavily in college, of which I'm doubtful about the majority of what I learn. The only professor I agree with in most respects is Professor Kevin Hunt, a human paleontologist at Indiana University Bloomington, and he has brought some light to a lot of untouched topics. About the funnel shaped, or what he changed to calling a cone shaped torso, the function on that is more related to uni-arm hanging. The torso takes on a tear-drop shape and take the stress off the rib cage. Apes often do this when feeding and they hang on branches on one arm and use the other to create a periphery of which to grab fruit. Other functional features which add to this are a cranial oriented glenoid fossa (a scapula that is angled toward their head), robust, powerful, curved digits to aid in the hanging, and a number of other traits that allow them to vertical climb into and out of the trees in the first place like a short stiff back with an embedded lumbar vertebra into the pelvis to prevent buckling while climbing.

That said, apes DO have a much larger hindgut than humans, allowing them to handle a much higher, fibrous diet, excess matter-filled diet. Humans could eat as many domesticated fruits and vegetables as we wanted, and even the wild ones that we found tasty, and would likely not consume the excess bulk that apes consume. Unlike the other apes, humans have a larger small intestine and a reduced hindgut, indicating a greater ability to absorb nutrients, especially a greater ability to handle larger quantities of sugars. I did not read the second article, I didn't notice it, but now that I know it exists, I will most certainly look at it. I'm well aware of some hunter-gatherer tribes with high animal-food intakes, but I also know that Cordain, one of the leaders in the paleo-diet idea has done studies on the majority of hunter-gatherer populations and found their overall protein intakes at or below 10% of calories consumed.

I'm not denying that meat eating is clearly in human history, although it does puzzle me that are digestive system does not seem to be designed for it, although it could be cooking that threw a curve ball at it.

I would say that the Inuit is not the greatest example since they've only been around for about 8000 years. I'd also like to mention that, it's pretty clear that humans can SURVIVE on quite an array of diets, but to THRIVE is something totally different.

Do I think humans should be eating EXACTLY like the other apes, no, I don't think we could handle the bulk that they do. But do I think we should be eating a heck of a lot closer? Well, that's for you to decide, but I know a lot of athletes that eat a diet of fruits and vegetables and set records. Am I judgmental about the diets of others? Of course not. Do what WORKS. If the program you are on is working, then why stop? If the program you are on is not working or satisfying, then it's worth a second look, no?

Personally, I eat a diet solely of whole, fresh fruits and vegetables. Some like to sum it up as "whole, fresh, ripe, raw, organic, plant foods." It's mostly sweet ripe fruits and leafy greens, but I generally choose whichever fruits and vegetables I have access to or desire. It's what makes me feel best. Yes, I do eat a ratio of 80/10/10, meaning that I get a minimum of 80% of my calories from carbohydrates, primarily simple sugars from fruit, all readily absorbable. I get a maximum of 10% of my calories from protein, and the same for fat, but often my numbers will fall somewhere in between 80/10/10 and 90/5/5.

Anyone interested I encourage them to check out the work of Dr. Douglas N. Graham at www.foodnsport.com

He's terrific. He's also got some great video lectures posted on youtube.

Like I said, I know that there is meat eating in the fossil record, and cooking in the fossil record, BUT, there seems to be a major disconnect between what is found and what we currently have. Just food for thought

[SamSpaiser]

I apologize for the extended length post. Anyone and everyone is most certainly entitled to their time on the floor, and to say, at a minimum, as much as I said. I'm just trying to bring some alternate views to the table, I really hope I'm not coming off as pushy, so I'm sorry again, if it sounded forceful in any way.

[SamSpaiser]

Ok, I looked over the national geographic article, if that's the one that was referred to. I know all about Ardipithecus ramidus, and I tend to disagree with Tim White and Owen Lovejoy, of whom I've read many papers from. I believe that Ardi ramidus is on the chimpanzee lineage. To put things in context, our last common ancestor with chimps was Ouranopithecus, 6mya. Then chimps break off to Ardipithecus kadaba, followed by Ardi ramidus. Humans break off to the many Australopiths. Every time a new fossil comes out, the anthropoligst that finds it wants to believe it's a human ancestor for the recognition, but, from what I've studied, Ardi seems to be getting more chimp-like from Ouranopithecus rather than more human like. Maybe this was the wrong article, I didn't see anything about orangutans, but I'll admit that it's 5am and I sort of skimmed it once I saw that it was about Ardi.

[Edward Smith]

Sam,

Thanks for the legitimate counter-points, I am not well versed in anthropology and human lineage. However, Lucy(Australopithecus) was a meat-eater. I know she's more recent (3 million years ago), but that is still enough time to adapt to such a change in diet. Barry Sears notes in 'The Omega Rx Zone' the evidence of increased omega-3 consumption, long-chain from animals, and our boom from being mere hunter-gatherers like our brothers the Neanderthals (and other Homo species) to smart, intelligent top-of-the-food-chain species we are now, approximately 100 00 years ago.

I agree with your point, humans can survive on a number of diets, hell I believe there's research saying we could live on nothing but bananas for two years, but thriving is another thing. I do not understand why you think the Inuit is not a good example, they share the same genes with us, what does only being 800 years old have to do with it? Then there's Vilhjalmur Stefansson who lived with the Eskimos then with fellow explorers took part in a study where they ate nothing but meat, for a year, and displayed good health.

There's also been intervention studies done on Australian Aborigines, who nowadays have an extremely high rates of diabetes and liver disease. When taken out of city-settings into the outback and made to eat a diet imitating that of their ancestors (Kangaroo, Emu, Turtle/Tortoise, etc etc) which exceeded 40% protein they had much improved health parameters (blood glucose, cholestrol). Excersice was not a factor, they were doing less in the outback then in the city.

There's also the other intervention studies that show the health promoting effects of low-carb diets.

A question for you, you don't eat grains or legumes? Just fruit and Veg? What about nuts and seeds?

Don't get me wrong I don't believe we are carnivorous beings. I believe we do best with vegetable and fruit matter.

Ed

P.S You are incorrect about Cordain's research into macronutrient ratios (carb/fat/pro) in hunter-gatherer diets, some may have been below or equal to 10% protein but most far exceeded this. The only group that comes to mind with a high energy content coming from plant food consumption is the Kung people (think it's them) who got 60-70% of cals from some sort of nut that grows in their area.

[Edward Smith]

Sam,

Sorry forgot two of your points. With the funnel/cone shaped rib cages of apes evolving to accommodate hanging by one-arm could it not be the other way round, their rib cages evolved this way then started to hang by one-arm? That's just some food for thought, truly and honestly I'd have to have a good look at the bone structures of apes to see the biomechanics of their shoulders and how they hang and again I have no true depth of understanding in anthropology.

As for humans being able to handle larger quantities of sugar, due to larger small intestines, I disagree. when we look at high sugar intake (high overall carb intake as well) and look at the biomarkers (fasting glucose, c-reactive protein, cholesterol) we tend to see poor numbers, indicating poor health which indicates even if we are physically able to handle (absorb) larger quantities of sugar we are unable to handle (metabolise) them that well.

Please note my questions in my last two posts were legitimate questions, not intended as attacks on you or anything. I am genuinely interested to hear your opinions on this stuff. You said you believe health deteriorates when cals from fat and protein, collectively, exceeds 20%, what health parameters are you using to establish this?

Ed

[SamSpaiser]

Hey ed,

Based on microwear evidence, I would have to disagree, and say that A. afarensis was still primarily a frugivore, but since this was stage 2 in a trend towards a dryer habitat, more pith was included in the diet. Sure, you could argue that slightly more meat was included in their diets, but I believe it was marginal. You're absolutely right, 3 million years would indeed be enough time to adapt, from what I've read of Richard Leakey, a species needs a bare minimum of 500,000yrs to adapt, but 1 million years is more in the appropriate range. I've done pretty darn well on Cavendish bananas (and leafy greens) for an extended period of months, but no, I would not recommend it beyond, say a 3 or 4 month span. The Inuits are one of the few human populations that is subjected to extreme cold and eat a VERY high fat diet of blubber and exclusive animal food diet. And, they've only been doing this for 8000yrs, so it would be more telling to look at a population that has been eating similarly for hundreds of thousands of years and to see if there have been any adaptations. What is also subjective, is what the researchers consider as "good health." Does good health mean no apparent disease? Does good health mean winning marathons? Who/what is the type specimen for good health?

Yes, I eat a diet of fruits and vegetables. I would eat nuts and seeds with dinner on occasion if I found them fresh, but you have to be at the tree yourself usually to find them fresh. I don't consume anything processed/packaged/dried, and most nuts/seeds are many seasons old and they are all dried. A better choice for overt fat, in my opinion, would be fatty fruits, as they are easier to digest. However, I don't believe that overt fats are a necessity, but can certainly be enjoyed without harm if overall percentage of fat remains below 10% of total calories consumed. My reasoning for this is because once 10% is exceeded, one starts running the risk of sugar metabolic disorders, or more rightly named fat metabolic disorders.

It's very possible that I may have misstated numbers from Cordain. I can't find the article right now. If this is the case, I'll have to look through some other papers I've read to find where I read it. The idea of consuming less than 10% of calories from protein stems from the over 400 peer reviewed published papers from Professor T. Colin Campbell and the China Study Project. Ironically he originally pursued this to prove the opposite, but was proved wrong.

Functional morphology acts on environmental stressors, and adapts accordingly. The cone-shaped torsos were not prevalent in Miocene apes because they had no need to vertical climb, arm hang, or quadrapedally knuckle walk. This is because during the Miocene, monkeys had not adapted to eating unripe fruits and leaves. Thus, both monkeys and apes were ripe fruit specialists, and since apes were bigger, they outcompeted monkeys for ripe fruit. Once monkeys evolved gut flora for leaf eating and an extended specialized hind gut that allowed them to process unripe fruit, as well as evolving bilophodont molars instead of the Y-5 molar that apes (and humans) have, they started out competing apes for fruit at the center of the trees, leaving apes to uni-armhang and reach out to the periphery of the trees to grab what ever was left over when it was finally ripe.

I get a blood test in August, and everything fell within whatever medical doctors consider "the healthy range." Whether I agree with those numbers or not, at least it finally convinced my family that I'm perfectly fine. What I thought was significant was that my blood glucose levels were 80mg/L, while most people expected it to be higher, but I believe it stays low because of my low-fat intake. And for the health deterioration, see the note I made about the China Study. Like I said before, there's a heck of a lot of anomalies in evolution, and if you're interested in the angle of nutrition I'm coming from, check out The China Study and The 80/10/10 Diet. I like to hear all sides of the story, and books I've even read books on anopsonology, or "instinctive" nutrition. I'm also about to start read "Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human." Knowing all arguments will make which ever one I choose stronger, or heck, maybe I'll realize how horribly wrong I am. All I know is, as far as my life goes, the 80/10/10 program makes me feel the best and is most enjoyable, and I found it because what I was doing in my life previously wasn't working. The Standard American Diet wasn't working, so I went vegetarian. Vegetarian wasn't working so I went vegan. Vegan stopped working so I went high-fat raw. High-fat raw vegan was not working so I went low fat raw vegan, and it's been incredible. The only thing is that I was a runner previously, so I've only been doing gymnastics for 6 months, and it's really much needed, but the muscle has been growing with my training. I've already put on 10lbs since I've started, granted that it wasn't all in muscle, I went persimmon happy in persimmon season

I think we can agree on one thing: humans are truly puzzling creatures.

[Jason Stein]

If I recall correctly, didn't Cordain debate Campbell? And haven't Campbell's points been rather successfully refuted?

Gary Taubes makes an interesting point about the oft-cited China Studay: "The patterns of disease that Colin Campbell writes about in his book on the China Study basically come down to the appearance of western chronic diseases -- obesity, diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, etc. -- when the population goes from eating traditional diets to western diets.

Rural populations, for example, eat more traditional diets and seem to be healthier than urban populationsthat eat more westernized diets. Campbell focuses on differences in meat consumption, because his preconception is that animal protein is to blame. Campbell's colleague on the China Study, Richard Peto of Oxford, pointed out that the study itself -- all 800 pages -- had no conclusions whatsoever about causal factors because Peto didn't think that the associations they perceived said anything about cause.

One thing the China Study neglected to pay attention to was sugar consumption. Certainly sugar consumption and refined carbohydrate consumption -- white bread instead of brown, white rice instead of brown -- can explain the same patterns of disease when they show up all over the rest of the world.

The apparent health of the Japanese could also be explained by the historical absence of sugar in their diets."

Food for thought.

jason

[SamSpaiser]

Yes, you point out some valid flaws in the study. About carbs, rather than debating whole or refined grains, isn't a better question, should humans be consuming grains in the first place? The only animals that are graminivores are birds. Humans have only been consuming grains since the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago. Could this suggest that that is not sufficient time to adapt? Meat, one could make a case for adaptation, cooking, one could make the case for adaptation, I've even heard the case made for milk, although I do not support it, and I'm a bit skeptical of grains as well.

[Jason Stein]

Sam,

I'd suggest that based on current evidence, Campbell's study is not useful or suggestive for making dietary recommendations. The debate with Cordain ended with Campbell asking (I'm paraphrasing), "But really, what can the study of evolutionary biology tell us anyway?"

"Catching Fire" presents compelling evidence that cooked food enabled us to evolve; it also interestingly discusses recent studies on vegans and raw foodies, which if I recall correctly reported the side effects of which diets were a constant focus on food preparation, frequent periods of hunger, and constant caloric deficits versus physical output.

The initial post title presents a false dilemma, as the truth is that humans are omnivores that thrive best when eating food, as Michael Pollan defines it.

best,

jason

[Blairbob]

Sam, your long posts are no burden to me. As well, I'm known for some long ones as well. Coming from an anthropology background I find it all very interesting.

I'm aware of the China Study and the debate between Campbell vs Cordain.

[SamSpaiser]

Jason,

I'm halfway through Catching Fire and am really enjoying it. Wrangham does neglect to mention 80/10/10 low fat raw vegans, which are the only longterm successful raw vegans I know of: those who eat a diet of sweet ripe fruit, and leafy greens, primarily. Those raw vegans seem to be setting athletic records, people like Michael Arnstein winning marathons. This type of raw food diet leaves the eater satisfied and requires zero preparation, and I am enjoying the simplicity of life and the sweetness of fruit, as well as the best health I've ever enjoyed. There seems to be a disconnect between what is healthy and what is evolutionary, which I didn't seem to be able to understand and separate before. There shouldn't be a separation, in my opinion, but from my life experience fresh fruits and vegetables have brought me better health. Go figure. That said, I do agree with most of what you state, Jason. At some point though, I have to let go of everything and do whatever makes me FEEL the best. And so far I'm doing it.

Sam

[Jason Stein]

Sam,

I would be interested to read any studies on 80/10/10 vegans, as my 15-year experience orbiting the raw community in San Diego differs from yours in that in my observation, even those eating this manner do not last 100% raw beyond 3 years, and all suffered terrible guilt when they all inevitably "cheated."

This is not to mention a host of other ailments and maladies that, for example, the fruitarians tended to suffer.

Arnstein is an interesting case, for sure, though the trick is not to confuse correlation and association. Is it that a raw food diet allows him to set records --- or is it that he's no longer eating a standard American endurance athlete diet? Or eating a standard crazy-making raw vegan diet?

It almost doesn't really matter which direction you head from the SAD --- vegetarian, vegan, raw, Paleo, Ayurvedic, or macro, just to name a few. Eat less processed food and reduce your sugar intake and you will see improvements in mood, body composition, and energy. Depending on your physical endeavors, you may even see improvement in performance.

This doesn't mean, however, that moving from the horrible SA Diet to a merely bad plant- and fruit-based diet is ideal.

You definitely make an interesting point about health, wellness, and performance. Athletes often eat and exercise in ways not conducive to long-term wellness (i.e. avoiding diseases of civilization or degenerative illnesses), and I think that elite athletes are pulling a few years off the back end for their performances. But that's the trade-off, I guess.

best,

jason

[SamSpaiser]

You make a lot of totally valid points, Jason. Definitely anything other than SAD should show results better than SAD. Check out Harley Johnstone as well, he biked with Lance Armstrong taking him on a tour of Australia. It's definitely interesting that a diet which promotes specie success also promotes ill health, though, you are right about consuming less processed food will lead to greater health, and that our ancestors certainly did process foods in modern ways, rather their processing was cooking. I'm curious to read the second half of catching fire to see where wrangham takes things. One thing I am curious about for how our body works and utilizes energy, is that if it's not already a simple sugar, in order to be used as energy, it's got to be converted into a simple sugar (glucose), so what do you think of the idea of consuming most of the calories from simple sugars to get energy, especially after intense physical exertion to aid optimal recovery? This would make fruit a great post workout recovery food, no?

And you're spot on with the issues with fruitarians, they can get horribly deficient in certain nutrients, which is why I choose to include greens in my diet along with occasional other veggies that I enjoy, and so far based on medical observation I've got plenty of everything I need. It seems to be most other people I know who are deficient.

[Joshua Naterman]

Sam, I'm not as in the know as Jason or Ido on this aspect of nutritional stuff but I can share my personal experiences, some of which have been shaped by their comments. The problem with consuming sugar for calories is that sugar gets absorbed extremely quickly. You'd have to be on an almost constant "IV" drip to get your energy from sugar without fats and proteins to slow down the digestion and absorption to the point where you'd be fed but not building fat stores or insulin resistance. It's not really practical to do that.

I heard recently on Robb Wolf's podcast that once the liver restores its glycogen nutrient uptake goes back to baseline after the workout, and fructose goes straight to the liver. Fructose is a plant sugar that is abundant in fruits, so because of this fruit is not part of the best post workout meal. The fructose would re-fill the liver faster than other carbohydrate sources, and would shut down the enhanced nutrient uptake more quickly, which effectively means that your recovery wouldn't be as fast. I don't personally know how much that makes a difference, but I have followed Robb's suggestion of sweet potatoes with cinnamon, no sugar or anything else, for the PWO carbs, and in fact they are my main source of carbs period now. I feel and perform noticeably better, and my recovery actually seems to be FASTER than when I used to use pasta or rice. Of course, I also mix my protein with milk because of milk's ridiculous growth properties. And it works. I seem to be gaining 1-2 lbs a week, and it doesn't seem to be fat. My muscles are getting bigger all the time lol, I am starting to not fit into my XXL shirts hahaha! And of course my performance continues to improve.

Ed: I personally have eaten grains for the first 28 years of my life! I have achieved phenomenal levels of fitness with that diet, but let me tell you my personal experience. After reading a lot of what Jason and Ido have said I did my own research, and switched over to eating sweet potatoes instead of the grains. I never run out of energy now. It's ridiculous. I recover faster and perform better than I do on a grain diet. In fact, I can honestly say that my body is responding like it is much younger than it is I am very excited about this.

[SamSpaiser]

Slizzerdman, thanks for sharing, that's very interesting, I'd love to hear every once in a while on your progress, it sounds like things are going quite well. I'll have to take into a look about what you're talking about, it sounds interesting. Regardless of what one feels about fruit, I will say that most fruits have a mix of sugars, I know this just because I did a study on fruit chemistry; however, I'm not arguing against what you said about quick absorption, that's very true. Keep me posted.

Sam

[Jason Stein]

what do you think of the idea of consuming most of the calories from simple sugars to get energy, especially after intense physical exertion to aid optimal recovery? This would make fruit a great post workout recovery food, no?

And you're spot on with the issues with fruitarians, they can get horribly deficient in certain nutrients, which is why I choose to include greens in my diet along with occasional other veggies that I enjoy, and so far based on medical observation I've got plenty of everything I need. It seems to be most other people I know who are deficient.

Sam,

There're a lot of areas to play with regarding post-workout nutrition, and all of them depend on your current physical condition, your desired physical condition, your training goals, competitive goals (if you have them), etc, etc. Do you want to lean out or build mass? Are you recovering or increasing workload? Did your workout fatigue neural and muscular systems, or just neural systems?

Given that array of questions, I don't really believe anymore that fruit is always, or even often, a good post-workout choice.

If I can pass along some food for thought to you, my experience with raw foodies and fruitarians has been that many (but not all) belong to the food reductionist camp. They eat raw food because they consider food to be "Nutrient Delivery Units." The Fruitarians I've known have tended to look at fruit as optimal Sugar Delivery Units.

I hope you recognize the absurdity of that reductionism. I think earlier you mentioned Michael Pollan's "In Defense of Eating," which makes some great points along those lines.

I have had acquaintances eat nothing but oranges, or bananas (The reasoning? "The brain runs on sugar, you know, and bananas have natural sugar."), or watermelon. For one guy, the citric acid of eating however-many oranges a day stripped the enamel right off his teeth, which gets us into the other side of the raw, vegan and fruitarian lifestyle choices, which is the pathological eating-disorder aspect.

I think that though obviously we disagree on what food one will thrive while eating, we can both agree that food quality is key.

best,

jason