seand

i can't get all these bugs off my screen. they taunt me by marching in a figure-eight.

big boyeee! f1 has helped me tremendously. if you have goals and don't mind working for them - he will see that you get there! lighting a fire under your ass when you need it, standing beside you when you need it, evoking confidence when you need it and even taking the shirt right off his own back if you need it.

i don't know if creating artificial mutations is a better solution though

you tease! now you gotta share!

no, but that if she is looking to science instead of her own body and personal experience, then that might not be what's best for her. additionally, thank you for sharing your story. i will remind you though that i have not pushed any specific dietary regimen on anyone, nor prophesied a fruitarian or raw food dogma. i'm not a believer that there is one diet that surpasses all others. we are all different and in different stages of our lives. the fact that you have experimented with your body and (at this time) found what has or has not worked for you is commendable and right in line with what i believe. my argument is that science doesn't replace personal experience.

offense74, i don't think you're at risk of pissing anyone off, no worries. it's an interesting and worthy debate. these conversations are helpful and i think its beneficial to point out that we're all here together for a reason. that we share more in common than our differences. the difference i guess is that i truly believe that those ailments would make themselves evident. like you suggest in your post, you are interested in new documented science to tell you how to better yourself. i think as long as we have that extrinsic thought process it will be difficult to internalize our health. people will have low energy, headaches, back pains, emotional distress, etc, or just a feeling that something isn't right, and will just take a pill, herb, cleanse or ignore it - symptomatic treatments. our body gives us distinct signs when things are not working correctly. and yes i believe that the case for even things like homocysteine and vitamin levels once we tune into our body for answers and not to scientific journals.

i didn't have the desire to get in the middle of this, but i couldn't help but point out some of your concepts which are formulated by society. that you are a good little consumer, that you don't know what's best for yourself, that you need to be told what's right and not feel what's right. that you aren't qualified to feed yourself and to survive on your own? i mean come on these are laughable. yet i understand because i sounded exactly like this with just as much passion about five years ago. but things change and personal experiences happen that prove these ideas otherwise. the funny thing is i hear similar arguments all the time, as if i haven't heard them before. as if i haven't been exposed to the same society, the same big corporations with their mass marketings and influence in education and studies, or the same scientific rationale. many of us are aware of both sides of the argument, and supposed short falls. usually much more so than the challenger. generally, science is notorious for being a bit behind the curve of truth, i mean the world is flat and you need meat for protein and milk builds strong bones... right? we are intelligent beings - many of us coming with backgrounds in physiology and nutrition. many of us initially having the same exact arguments searching for scientific validation. but it doesn't matter because at the end of the day we develop the ability to listen confidently to ourselves and our bodies. we've tried it your way, the validated way. for whatever reason that didn't work for us. so we found something better. so i feel qualified, having tried both for considerable time, which is better for me. have you lived both? and i don't mean "raw for a weekend", but developed the ability to trust in the infinite wisdom of your being. if not, then how dare you criticize the people who have and have made that decision? so in response to your quote above, what else matters other than "personal experience"?

all melons, mangos, papayas, grapes, figs, avocados are a few of the in season ones that are available now...

open any textbook or your home encyclopedia. modernly, the term is erroneously thrown around, as you just exemplified by saying, "if they consume any meat", or "could survive eating meat". thats just not the case. it has more to do with anatomy and physiology of the animal, and what predominates its diet. there is a big difference between an omnivorous bear and a frugivorous primate, and their diets. the 3-6% calorically consumption of meat in a chimpanzees diet is insignificant. a personal question, does your recent passionate justifications of a non-frugivorous diet have anything to do with recent attempt at a fruitarian regimen and desire not to continue? please remember that a chimpanzee being classified frugivore has nothing to do with the diet that is best for you. only you can determine that. i'm not even suggesting it's the best for humans, nor am i pro fruitarian dogma, nor is the original post of this thread. i'm just regurgitating science classifications and logic as my textbooks list it.

i guess you've never had a fruiting tree... you have to send all your friends home with baskets of fruit. in our natural environment, a tropical environment, fruits are plentiful and easy... much more so than any alternative. simply, no! it means they have the anatomy and are biologically adapted to digesting those foodstuffs. it predominates their diet but i am not aware of any frugivore which consumes only the sweet flesh of fruit. i promise the chimpanzee doesn't closet binge or feel any guilt when breaking the fruitarian religion by seeing what those tiny crawlers taste like.

fruits are a great source of calories. i imagine calorie expenditure would be significantly less picking fruit than chasing and killing a live animal or gathering large amounts of grains, grinding them, cooking them, etc. as far as knowing what to eat - that's why you were given a thumb, color vision, a sense of smell and tastebuds. by the way, chimpanzees are classified frugivores, not omnivores. yes, even though they have been observed eating small quantities of flesh. there is a big difference between dogmatic "fruitarian" versus biological frugivore. that being said every animal is an opportunist.

'cause they aren't yummy!

are they yummy?

the two of you crack me up

looks good! do you have any afters?