For a correct understanding of the subject of this report must make an effort at self same: we must, that is, leaving aside all the theories and assumptions on Nutrition prehistoric man that large economic forces and a science subservient to power and profit have tried to make us accept the protection of vested interests. We shall endeavor to give satisfactory answers to the questions that certainly acceptable raises this issue, using common sense, logic and our basic instinctive Guidelines: are these three simple but powerful tools of investigation that we all have and re-evaluate and use with determination.
should be from an undeniable fact: our ancient ancestors were not carnivores, they were herbivores, omnivores were not, were simply Fruitarians and were for many years, the first of their existence. They have not yet been bipeds, lived in the trees of the forest, which gave them the only food to which the human species is biologically appropriate, that the fruit is juicy and sweet, still instinctively appetite and try to be as long as we keep our children healthy instincts food. So we still Fruitarians born, no doubt, there can be, as children and want to steal the fruit, no meat, no vegetables, only being attracted by the food more suited to our structure and then fisiopsichica nutritionally optimal, as comparative anatomy, comparative physiology and other scientific proof.
Undoubtedly, for each animal species there is a food suitable, more than any other, to that species and the fruit is juicy and sweet, just the food that is more naturally suited to the human species.
Scientifically this is easily explained because there is a close relationship, deep and atavistic, between a certain type of food structure and the functional anatomy of the animal that eats it, this report constitutes a guarantee of conservation and health for that 'body, which, therefore, is, of course, attracted instinctively by the specific food. That body is, in conclusion, crafted by natural law, optimally, the ingestion and digestion of that food and above all, more than any other food.
The terminology is important, should be as accurate as possible, to avoid confusion, errors of assessment, misinterpretation, wrong conclusions. That said, here is rising here the need to clarify the difference between "fruttivoro" and " fruitarian "and between" fruttivorismo "and" fruitarian ".
Let's talk then.
The term "fruttivorismo" is a generic "eat fruit" and therefore "fruttivoro" is "those who eat fruit." However, if we think that there are people who do not know the food of meat and oil, or bread, milk or non-human, but that (significativamente!) no people that ignores the fruit as food, then all the inhabitants of Earth could be characterized as "fruttivori", even if they eat fruit together with the other? CERT. Fruttivori But those who have finally managed to locate the fruit in its own unique and lasting food, happily restoring the natural food of our ancestors, are fruttivori details that must be distinguished from other fruttivori calling them "Fruitarians" and calling "fruitarian "they reached the food model. It would be wrong therefore to say that Fruitarians are "fruttivori Fruitarians.
In conclusion, all fruttivori and therefore all men without distinction of the Earth have the potential of future Fruitarians as all inevitably, much later and more or less quickly, they will arrive (this is real progress!) to fruitarian, coveted half of all humanity, now engaged in the long journey back to natural food, which has taken many thousands of years ago.
It is this, a long journey, but that would be greatly accelerated if a child had left free to grow with eating only fruit, only food that instinct suggests that We aim and we were not eating and is subject to the pressures of diverting parents, peers already spoiled by pediatricians who are ignorant or sold to, unfortunately, affect the parental care. More Note some terminology to say that you can validly use the term "fruit-eating" as a synonym for "fruitarian" as authoritatively confirm Pianegiani linguist in his etymological dictionary of the Italian language "and the linguist Webster in his" New International Dictionary. " It should be noted also that the etymological root of FRUCTUS is the same as "frugal" and then "frugality" to indicate a pattern of eating simple and limited to small quantities of produce, which returns to the praise of vegetarianism and of course of fruitarian. There are those who, relying on the fact that Fruges (Latin) means "fruit", but also means "fodder", he says, more or less artfully, that the term "fruit-eating", if we prefer this second meaning and whether it relates to man, to justify the use of food grains by the man himself.
Such a view, however scientifically untenable for many reasons and especially for the following, always keep in mind:
1. The grain damage of dried fruits (kernels) that, if intact, are unsuitable for human food and are suitable, for example, feeding granivorous birds, which are fomites of a digestive system specially designed for the digestion of these fruits / seeds grasses (family they belong to the cereal) and quite different from that of humans. The man only resorting to artifices unable to use the cereals with the milling and then by cooking, obtaining the end products of dead individuals, among other things, vitamin kit.
2. Man suit only raw fruit (ie "live"), fleshy and sweet, which made up - repeat - its only source of power in prehistory and contain more or less the same average percentage of water present in the human body (65%).
3. The digestion of starch in cereals is particularly onerous when energy expenditure and at the end will arrive to the formation of terminal monosaccharides (ie, simple sugars, such as, for example, glucose) that are already present, prepared to be absorbed without difficulty, in the fleshy fruit and sweet.
If, however, refers not to the man as a recipient of cereals, but other animals, the assertion is correct use of food grains is scientifically valid. Moreover we have seen just now that the kernel for granivorous birds (intact) of cereal is adequate food. The careful attention! - The same linguist Pianegiani (quoted above) which tells us that Fruges with the meaning of "fodder" fits "properly to the beasts," meaning evidently to "beasts" nonhuman animals, particularly herbivores, which in fact use the corn for fodder and for which therefore is fair to say (as always Pianegiani says) that "grazing" and harvests.
Since this paragraph is part of a work which focuses on protein for human consumption, one of the key points is no doubt that concerns the proteins in the fruit, which constituted the only food for thousands of prehistoric man. The man, however, at some stage of his past became prehistoric carnivore and meat, you know, is eminently a food protein, which is still present in the common diet of much of humanity. As a gulf between the 'Prehistoric man fruitarian just described and the current man carnivore! Because the man was carnivorous! Let us respond to this disturbing question in the following paragraph.
2. MAN BECOMES fruitarian Carnivore.
proteins from fruit to meat proteins.
course, in the very long period during which the man eats only fruit in his homeland, the fruitful inter-tropical forest, his protein needs could not be more than covered by the protein content of the fruit, the extent of which we will discuss in a separate subchapter. we are trying to understand the reasons for the advent of camivorismo in human life, that has all the characteristics of a tragic decline from which it took the boot degeneration fisiopsichica modern man, even the manner in which this event was to be realized are worthy of attention. That's why you need to talk about it before resuming the discussion on proteins. During the prehistory of the meteorological and geological events occurred that profoundly altered the environment. Particularly affected were the plant biomass from which the man drew his nourishment. Occurred:
· glaciations (expansions of glaciers), · interglacial (retreats of glaciers and the advent of warmer climates), second period of strong drying climate (drought), second period of exceptional increases in rainfall ( rain).
For the man was particularly important to the last ice age, called Wurm, Wurm III to be precise, the Quaternary (Pleistocene). This involved the huge ice age glaciers advanced over much of the Eurasian region, resulting in the destruction of forests and with effects that lasted until about 10,000 years ago. But this same period of glaciation was the intense precipitation (rain) that occurred in Africa, and even these weather events were fraught with consequences for humans. These were followed by rain the stages of a dramatic decrease in rainfall and consequent drying of the climate. To all this we must add the effects of the formation of the Great Rift Valley, along which Africa has been split as a result of a huge tectonic effect, still running.
All these events caused remarkable reductions in the forests were transformed mainly in savannah. The man was forced to act like an animal of the savannah, to survive, was forced to eat of what was in that environment . There he found the grass, plants that need open spaces, direct sunlight, conditions offered by the savannah and forest shadows whence the man came. Says the prof. Marcelle Cornel, a distinguished scholar, from whom we learned so much in his "Book of Health", "Man, for ancestral derivation is a monkey shadow: he lived for millions of years the trees, the shadows of foliage, fell to the ground, then wandered around for millions of years in the bush. "Now the grass (we have already spoken) produce fruit dry, odorless and tasteless;
are, in short, as we have said, food for birds. artifices with the man he succeeded, with the aid of fire, to use these kernels. But the most revolutionary event that occurred to man, behaving like an animal of the savannah, was the appeal for food, the meat of herbivorous inhabitants of the bush, thus becoming, by necessity, a meat eater, but always with the help of the fire, unable to eat it the raw kernels of corn and meat. Without the artifice of the cooking (for cereals) milling, the man he could not have become a meat eater, it cerealivoro, since its natural anatomical features (teeth, etc..) Alone would not have allowed .
The impact of the deviations unnatural foods (grains and protein bodies of animals, also cooked, that is, dead) was for the man, catastrophic consequences in terms of health and long life: which is understandable, given what I call "sheer leap" from a live food such as fruits and vitality on the one hand and starchy foods and meat, dead and deadly, high-protein such as meat, devitalized and then killed by cooking on the other. Reay Tannahill in his "History of Food" tells us that even "during the period of the Neanderthals survived less than half the population over 20 years and 9 out the remaining 10 adults died before age 40. "
particular the advent of the food was meaty, with its excessive content of protein and the resulting toxaemia to produce such disastrous effects on the body, but also on the minds of men, we must not forget that the meat creates aggression. It has been said before even the manner in which these events produced so negative "are worthy of attention." Accenniamone, thus explaining, in brief, what this says about James Collier, a prominent anthropologist: "As a result of the disastrous effects of these disturbing events on climate and vegetation, the man could no longer rely on plants for food and had to resort to the flesh. "But the man was unarmed, so it is by nature carnivorous, being baked anatomically devices designed to chase and kill and chewing raw meat of herbivores. It is believed therefore that primitive man was not, at first, so a hunter as a scavenger, feeding on prey of carnivores actually made by other animals, lacking even the callousness required to attack and kill with his own hands the peaceful and innocent animals, as well as helpless. Perhaps, using sticks and stones, the man managed to drive away the leopard dall'antilope killed, took possession of them and dragged her safe in his shelter. This behavior was also called "profiteering".
But the man did not just steal the carnivorous animals of their prey, but was forced too, when not to exercise that function was looting, to drive directly, forcing its natural non-aggression, by the need spintovi to find the means to survive. Prof. Facchini (professor of anthropology at the University of Bologna) is said certain that the prehistoric man strove fire to culinary purposes especially for cooking meat. Agrees with that statement also prof. Qakiaye Perles, now the University of Parigi.Ma luckily there are more reasons of force majeure, which forced our ancestors to eat with dead animals to make sure the protein requirement, so long the man has added to an increasing extent fruits, vegetables and raw vegetables in your diet. It should, however, always vigilant, to defend us from an authentic ambush that the food we tend continuously proposing, resorting to propaganda by the media and the work of doctors hired harmful substances convenience of dubious or even harmful.
3. PROTEINS FRUIT
The theme of this section is of particular importance in the problem of protein. His treatment is necessarily complex because it must draw on multiple information sources not only disparate but which may at first seem distant from the explanations even if the Treaty are useful and converging in the same intent.
This motivates the use of the following exposure "to stelloncini", which in similar cases is found to be the most convenient for the intelligibility of testo.Si is sought, however, give the succession of stelloncini, where possible, an order logical follow-up.
When it comes to protein categorizing them as a so-called principles of food, should always bear in mind that all Codest principles involved together in the synthesis of cellular matter: it must prevail, ie a holistic, comprehensive, symphonic, because all the nutrients are interdependent and all are equally indispensable. You can be sure that, conversely a sectoral vision gives rise to erroneous assessments.
Moreover, this interdependence is demonstrated by the fact that proteins are poorly digested in the absence of vitamins and their metabolism is dependent on that of carbohydrates and lipids, at least in part. This makes us think immediately of our natural food, fruits, where, precisely, the coexistence and interdependence of the different food principles gives rise to a complex (phytocomplex) which is smooth, while the optimum from the point of view of nutrition.
We first said that the man of the forest, where he had lived for millions of years, had to go in the bush. Now, the forest was fruitarian, while in the savannah, the absence of the fruit, had become a carnivore, perhaps the human organism, adapting to eating meat, assumed anatomical and physiological characteristics typical of carnivores? NO, retained the characteristics of the fruitarian. Today, after millions of years of unnatural eating meat, our nails turned into claws, our intestines is not shortened, our canines are not becoming elongated fangs, our gastric juice did not increase his original and weak acidity typical of Fruitarians, the liver has enhanced its ability antitoxic, is missing the instinctive attraction performed on humans in childhood has disappeared from the fruit and even the equally instinctive repulsion exerted by the meat on a child just weaned. All signs, such that the excess protein that, together with other negative characteristics are present in the flesh, while causing enormous damage, failed to alter the structure fisiopsichica man, which shows that eating meat is so alien biological and nutritional interests of man that they can not adapt, while suffering the serious consequences of an unnatural carnivorous for a very long time.
The 22 amino acids (21 according to some, others 23 seconds) that exist in foods are divided, according to the official nutrizionistica into two categories: that of the 14 amino acids that can be produced (synthesized) by the human body and that of amino acids called essential "(8 or 10) that instead it is considered can not be synthesized by the human body and should therefore be taken with food. The writer has repeatedly declared its opposition to this theory, demonstrating that the "essential amino acids" are a real "Myth." However, assuming the real existence as medicine claim it is legitimate to ask that question of fundamental importance: where did they draw from, our arboreal ancestors, today called essential amino acids, considered essential to life, during the millions of years in which were inhabitants of the forest and certainly only Fruitarians The answer to this question, one that can not be dictated by elementary logic and common sense: apparently only the fruit, although, in the opinion of some paleoanthropologists, were probably added other parts of the succulent fruit of plants. And since today we continue to have those same anatomical features, physiological and instinctual those of our ancestors, we conclude that the proteins of the fruit are qualitatively and quantitatively sufficient to ensure optimal human life even today.
Based on these and other considerations, the prof. Alan Walker, an anthropologist at Johns Hopkins University, concluded that the fruit is not only our most important food, but the only one to which the human species is biologically adapted. To substantiate the claim, Walker has studied the long Grouting and marks left in the fossil record, the teeth, since any kind of food without distinguishing marks on the teeth, was discovered, so that "each tooth examined, belonging the hominids who lived over a time ranging from 12 million years ago, until the appearance of Homo erectus, shows the striations typical of fruit-eating, without exception. "
Instinctively, therefore, our ancestors ate what nature gave them, that is the mature fruit, colorful, fragrant, meaty, sweet. And it is easy to imagine that our ancestors ate fruit carefree, knowing nothing (lucky them!) on the amount and quality of protein in fruit , guided only by instinct ... and fared well. clear that the fruit is the best food, all natural, for man and for his entire life to begin from the moment they can chew. The fruitarian man is innate, because blossomed instinct, which we repeat - is the genuine expression, perfect, indisputable physiological nutritional needs of our cells, it also manifests itself before the end of lactation, and also evident in the palatability the avidity with which the child is still suckling take fresh fruit juices, which may be substituted in some cases the mother's milk (grape juice, for example, as suggested by Joseph Tallarico, enlightened doctor, in his major work "The Life food ").
We first mentioned the bite. Need for chewing teeth and the teeth begin to be born towards the end of lactation, ie peripdo in which the growth of the human infant is entrusted to the suction of the milk secretion of the mammary glands of the mother. Question: Why at the end of lactation (and even before) the instinct directs us decisively towards the fruit? The answer is simple: there is a close correlation between milk, which is our first food, necessarily fluid, and fruits, milk and food that will happen which will accompany us, feeding for the rest of our vita.Esiste therefore biologically entered in the birth of our anatomy and physiology of our, a "nutrient continuity between breast milk and fruit" for which we can rightly consider these two ancestral human food food prototypes. To demonstrate conclusively what has been said in previous 'stelloncino' nutritional continuity between breast milk and fruit, we must keep in mind what we have repeatedly stated namely:
1. Humans are not suited to high-protein foods, which would be detrimental to his health, 2. the man has a singularly modest requirements of protein, as is easily demonstrated by examining the breast milk.
We start from the "milk", which will operate the lead in demonstrating its continuity with nutritional fruit. E 'is known that by 6 months of extrauterine life the man comes to double and triple their weight by 12 °, fed solely on breast milk. All text bromatological chemistry and human physiology tell us that breast milk contains 1'1, 2% protein. Well, not quite so, because, up to 5 days after the birth of the child, human milk contains 2% protein, and this figure, starting from the 6th day, and gradually begins to decline slowly to reach, after 3-4 weeks, 1'1, 3% and after 7-8 weeks, 1 '1.2%, which will then be maintained more or less constant until the end of breastfeeding.
is noted, in essence, a clear and regular decrease in the protein content of our unique "first food" to the extent that the infant starts with the gradual appearance of the teeth, masticatory ability to acquire. Reached this capacity, ending the period from birth to weaning, which is probably the anabolic phase more difficult, more intense and difficult of all human life and overcome, as we have seen, with a food (breast milk) containing small percentages of protein indicated above.
Since the growth rate is highest in the first few days of life and then gradually decreases, it is also logical that the percentage of protein contained in milk, and as a necessary building materials, should follow the same andamento.L 'individual weight gain continues, as we know, even after the appearance of the teeth, to end between 21 and 24 years, but with a extremely low rate compared to that of the infant.
It is therefore quite obvious that the food will replace the breast milk should have a protein corresponding to the real needs of the individual proteins no longer infants, in line with the decrease, the first evidence of such protein needs. In summary, "the protein requirement of man is highest in infants, middle adolescence, at least in adults", this we says the great Roman igienistaAttilio in his valuable work, "Prejudices and errors in terms of power" also insists on this prof. Alessandro Clerici in his work as "you must eat." It should be noted:
1. No doubt it is for the German doctor Lahmann the merit of having a pioneer lit and thrown in the field of human diet, the scientific basis of fruitarian, having discovered and demonstrated that it is the innate natural continuation lattea.2 supply. Even before the Lahmann, another "great", Max Rubner, a professor of clinical medicine at the University of Berlin, drew the attention of scholars of his contemporaries (and Lahmann took the importance of this appeal) that "the scarcity of protein in milk is a hallmark of the human species that you denounce the champions of protein-rich schemes."
This is the rule that exists in nature, aimed at the different living foods that contain the essential principles of food, but only the necessary amount, which should be considered optimum for the individual. So much so that we can not feed a human baby, whose milk contains a '1.2% protein, with milk, for example. cow's milk, which contains 3.5% protein without certain features such as the primary dilution, in an attempt to prevent enteritis and other diseases, including gravi.Il human body and observes their this rule, known as the "law of minimum, which we believe could also (and perhaps" better ") called" law of the optimum "as if the individual ingests foods that contain nutrients in amounts in excess of its needs , the excess becomes a body for the real toxic waste and the body tries in every way to get rid of it, which occurs especially for proteins, as before hath been said before.
Since the growth rate of the individual infant is no longer significantly less than it had during lactation, it is natural and obvious that the protein content of the first solid food after man takes weaning should be less than that of breast milk and be considered as the optimum according to the "law of minimum." This, in keeping with the decreased need for real proteine.Ebbene, that food can not be that the fruit, which, in fact, the average protein content is sufficient to meet normal nutritional weaning of the next phase: that is, on average less than that found in breast milk during lactation is around all'l terminal, 2%, as disse.A this respect is an interesting review of Dr. Lovewisdom, one of the most profound scholars of natural human . He tells us in his book "The adult human has no need of food contain more taxed% protein "" L'homme, Le Singe et le Paradis. "Moreover, after completing its growth, our need for protein is required to replace cells lost to wear, that is easy to maintain metabolic equilibrium, and which is the fruit in water is more than enough.
However, all plants, even the most neglected and little known, contain proteins, without exception, this is a fixed point, it is necessary to keep presente.Diversi scholars argue vegetarianism always be necessary to supplement the fruit with juicy and keep other parts of plants, still raw and fresh, albeit in separate meals, ie: roots (carrot, celeriac, celery, celeriac, beetroot), receptacles and floral base of the bracts (artichoke), leaves, stems and buds (lettuce, chicory, celery, spinach, sprouts of various kinds), shoots (asparagus, fennel), and inflorescence stems (cauliflower, broccoli various kinds), bulbs (onion), etc.. (All these plants are commonly called "vegetables" in Italian, "légumes" in French). Now lists the most common fleshy fruits with its protein content, in percent: 0.8
apricot orange watermelon 0.9 0.9 - avocado cucumber 1.3 2.6 1.4 0.9 banana cherry date 1.2 2.2 1.5 fig prickly pear strawberry 0.95 0.8 1.4 lemon 0.9 1lampone khaki tangerine 1mela Melon 0.35 1.3 0.45 1nespola blackberry pear pepper 1.2 0.6 0.7 Fishing 0.8 grape tomato 1prugna 1zucchina. Average: 28.75 / 26 = 1.1%
and here are the percentages of most common proteins present in vegetables, limited to those that can be used raw:
asparagus beet 1.8 1.2 1.6 beetroot artichoke 2, chicory 4cavolfiore 2.6 1.2 1.6 onion carrot cabbage 1.4 3.3 1.9 red cabbage, fennel, lettuce, etc. 1.9 1.3 1.7 parsnip leek 2ravanello 1sedano (leaves / stems) 1sedano celeriac spinach 1.5 2.2 Average: 31 , 9 / 18 = 1.78%
would be wrong, at this point conclusively to the arithmetic mean of the average protein content of fruit and that of to derive practical guidelines vegetable food. This calculation would give 1.44 [(1.1 + 1.78) / 2] and it would be good if our diet was made up to 50% fruit and 50% from vegetables. Instead, you must give clear preponderance of the fruit, which is the prince of our food because the food was primitive man, the one with which the human body is forged. Instead of giving in just measure the prevalence of fruit, the average charge of protein foods that should be used by man stood at about 1.3%. This is well enough, rather than (again, on average, which is what matters) to the needs of man, especially after the completion of development, ie after 24 years of age. After all, this is evidenced by the fact that Fruitarians not suffering from any shortage and have no health problems. Of course the results of the calculations above do not have to be taken, "the comma" or the hundredth, but they demand, and have a general value orientation and especially want to offer, and offer proof of the continuity between nutrition and breast milk fruit. About dell'ottimale validity of fruitarian nutrition we dwell to bring authoritative opinions, other events, other scientific arguments to show that validity, which guarantees fruitarian to man the enjoyment of full health physio-psychic, but throughout the abundant supply evidence that it would dominate collect evidence-based, the most indisputable, already mentioned by us before, but who return to evoke: the forest's original home, they lived in perfect health, on fruit trees, millions of years, feeding on fruits and - hypothetically claim some scholars, such as Lovewisdom - also keep other parts of plants.
Most likely the reader will wonder what is the need to demonstrate that the protein load of breast milk is the same (or very nearly) not only of the fruit, but also the so-called vegetables. You have not said that prehistoric man lived in trees eating fruit only fruit? In short, the only fruit is sufficient or not to feed the man? We try to answer below interrogativi.Si those already mentioned earlier that according to some scholars, the fruit should be integrated with other parts of tender and juicy vegetable share that opinion, but also because we share the view of the cornea, Tallarico, Carque, etc.. namely, that our earliest ancestors ate arboreal "only" fruit, we should we explain this apparent contradiction.
First, the first men ate the fruit from the forest arboreal intertropical was, as a nutritional ability, enormously greater than exists today. The fruit of today is the result of thousands of years of fruit that, having to deal with the products of the earth, it does so using criteria based on fruit production:
° making plant · Color · cutting height setting · taste · Accommodations · shelf · ease of collection · safety and continuous increase in profit.
So today's production is profoundly artificial fruit, while fruit that had prehistoric man was the product of the free play of the vital forces of air, soil, mysterious forces of nature, was the daughter of light, chest of solar energy, alive and invigorating, not increased under the stimulus abnormal chemical fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides for, residues of which make the fruit even today sometimes dangerous to our health. There is an abyss, then, between the fruit that fed early humans and fruit today. Modern man actually begins to realize that fruit and badly nourished, and has lost the flavor of the fruit "old" that you miss. Here then rise to initiatives such as "fruit of the tree archeology", "sperm banks" and especially organic farming. An example: the pear so-called "plug" is the "pear-old, lumpy, twisted, very ugly if you look at it with the eye of traditional aesthetics for which the pear, the domesticated must have the classical form and nothing else. Of pear trees in Italy "plug" will remain only a few, destined to disappear because people want to pears "beautiful" appearance and gnarled and ugly, but then who is delighted the taste for their taste, no longer found pears in the "modern", the fruit of cultivars, breeding, grafting, genetic manipulation, fitonnoni, etc. .. The same goes for many varieties of apples in the process of disappearance, such as apples "old maids" for example.
Decided then decline, the nutritional value of fruits in relation to modern fruit "old" and when we say "old" we mean just a century ago or so, but to the extent that we go to back in time the difference is, of course, more pronounced, so that it is difficult to imagine what power reserve nutritional fruit served to nutrition and growth of the earliest generations of man and tree-fruttariano.Abbiamo above that people have began to understand that the fruit today, although we continue to be attracted by it, not only eats little but has also hurt. Below we explain why.
a result of the treatments and selections that man, as we mentioned before, applied in agriculture and particularly in fruit, the fruit produced is mainly characterized by excessive sugar content. It is true that the Our body works thanks to sugar, but it is also true that sugar, like any other food, to be assimilated, must be associated with vitamins, especially B group, minerals, amino acids and other nutrients with which constitutes a phytocomplex balanced and harmonious.
Excess sugar found in fruit today instead creates imbalance and disharmony, for which the body is not able to use all the sugar found in fruit, which is why it was said that the fruits of today runs the risk of feeding "too bad". How to address this imbalance? Including in our diet a significant amount of sugary foods, especially raw vegetables and other vegetables, which provide plenty of vitamins, minerals and essential amino acids, essential for a balanced nutrition. The
add vegetables to fruit and vegetables, although this remains quantitatively predominant, is therefore a "corrrettivo? Certainly it is a useful corrective. Of course, both fruits and vegetables, the vegetables to retain their nutritional effectiveness, should be eaten raw and is also a good idea to use them in separate meals. But now we add that this is a corrective "temporary" and below we explain why we say is seen temporaneo.Abbiamo - summarize - the fruit of today's compared to fruit that fed the prehistoric man, it lacks nutritional value (and looks in the current process in place, the nature of rapprochement, organic farming, as a remedy for the former), but exceeds, however, in sugar content ( glucose / fructose) (and try to remedy it aims to support the consumption with vegetables, which can thus contributing towards the supply of protein). Since, as is evident, this is a situation, the current one, on the move, which will progress to measure organic farming, will also improve the quality of fruit present, whose negatives (excesses and defects mentioned above) will progressively fade away and eventually disappear.
Obviously, when the fruit fully regain the characteristics that enabled the emergence of prehistoric tree-filled and fruitarian, cease the need or the simple convenience of using the vegetables and the man will again be 100% fruitarian and will be a big day, we believe that not too far, given the growing interest in encouraging this very important issue. It was noted, about the addition of vegetables and fruit, that the three great apes (Pongidae) orangutan, chimpanzee and gorillas, commonly considered, plans anatomy, physiology, blood, etc.., the closest our relatives, they eat, as well as fruit, leaves, buds, bark, twigs, roots, wild celery, bamboo and other grasses. Above all, he points out that this behavior is found in gorilla food, instead of many Fruitarians was taken as an example of animal 100% fruitarian, as a kind of archetype fruitarian: believed, indeed, by some participants that the fruit to the diet of the gorilla to a lesser extent the other plants mentioned above. Are all agreed in pointing out, in the diet of Pongidae, the absence of nuts (that is, we point out, seeds), as particularly important that we emphasize, as it will be said below about the seeds and their protein load. As above is quoted by some to try to confirm, on an alleged scientific zoological / evolution, the necessity of adding vegetables to fruit and vegetables, even by man, that is, in effect, to deny the sufficiency of a nutritional diet 100% fruitarian. except that those who say such things scientifically incorrect and say their conclusions are wrong, lacking, among other things, valuable cultural updates. In fact, those who "photocopy" of the conduct Pongidae (permitted but not granted that those that are described) claim to be transferred to humans verbatim, as a biological imperative automatic, which seems to have remained popular and simplistic (and, we might even say childish) interpretation of what Charles Darwin in 1871, wrote in his "The Descent of Man." He said then that Darwin argued that "man descended from monkeys." As is every person with a minimum of biological culture / nature knows, Darwin said that man descended from an ape.
The truth is, however, that the great apes and humans are organisms contemporaries, but that would follow, however, from a primate, the common ancestor that existed millions of years ago and now extinct. Would then originate from the two distinct lineages, one of which would have led to apes, while the other would have as the final man. Also - says Ralph Cinque, DC, director dell'Hygeia Health Retreat diYorktown (Texas), despite his criticism of the human fruitarian 100% - "no man is a monkey improved slightly, the differences with humans is considerable and it is a mistake to draw parallels between the two "(the magazine Vie et Action No. 157).
echoes TC Fry, editor of the Living Healthfui, who argues that advice to eat vegetables because they contain nutrients that are not in the fruit is nonsense because there is nothing that is not in vegetables contain, as sufficient, even in frutta.Un 'objection to the use of biochemical adverse vegetables is this: While herbivores are provided with the enzyme "cellulase" to convert the cellulose into glucose contained in the leaves, the man is devoid of this enzyme and therefore not derived any benefit, at least as regards the supply of carbohydrates from eating vegetables. All that, in addition to cellulose, is found in the leaf and may have some nutritional value it is also found in fruit. Since our body needs for energy, glucose, green leaves are not able to give him the absence of this enzyme. Ultimately, the vegetables can be considered natural herbivores but certainly not for Fruitarians, like the man and it does not give us any calories and is more energy we spend on their digestion that what one gets.
It is said that in vegetables is chlorophyll, which are attributed to the particular virtues in human nutrition, but the chlorophyll is a protein like the others. Vitamins, minerals, proteins and some fatty acids in the leaves can also be found in fruits, fruit is also in the water "physiological" more or less the same percentage with which it is present in the human body, not so in the leaves and even less in semi.Fry then moves his attention to the fact that most of leaves, including those we eat, have a poison protectors of the plant. Among the most toxic leaves that we eat will be: celery, chard, turnip rape (rape), rhubarb, parsley, basil, spinach, chicory, mint, dandelion, oregano, etc. .
particularly toxic and even deadly are the leaves of tomato, potato, eggplant, peppers, apricots, etc.. Even the leaves of lettuce seem to be, although modestly, supplies of toxic substances. The presence of these poisons in the leaves and protectors of the resulting toxicological risks that exist in eating are authoritatively confirmed by studies made by prof. Bruce Ames, UC Berkeley, USA. By contrast, most of the fruit used by humans for food are free of tossiche.Anche news related to the presence of leaves and other plant parts in the normal diet of great apes, which first was discussed, are false. The first observation that can be done is that we can not be constrained by their current condition, not be more than the Eskimos, he says wryly Fry.Si has said before that the great apes do not eat seeds, commonly referred to as "nuts." Now, with regard to man, we can say that nuts are not only necessary, but even be harmful, containing an anti-nutritional factor, a antienzima, which impedes their digestion by other enzymes. It is clear that the seeds are designed to give new life to a living being, and are certainly not intended to be destroyed by the grinding of teeth of man before his digestive juices. Nature did not produce seeds to feed the man, too much protein and can, just because of that excess protein, causing damage to human health. Finally, it contains very little water, are unsuitable for this to be an adequate food to human needs.
For the man who was in a state of nature, with no cooking appliances, having only his body, without tools of any kind, the fruit is the only thing that would take, refusing herbs, cereals, roots and tubers, and of course refuse, being unable to capture, kill and eat other animals or drink their fruit latte.La essentially , is a natural food, which appeared when it appeared the man was clearly intended by nature, symbiotically, to optimally nourish man.
When we say that the fruit, used as a single feed, causing an overload of sugar, it overlooks the fact that contributes to that excess (and could not be otherwise), even the food we eat starch (bread, pasta, rice, polenta, etc.). and that, as ultimate fate of his digestion, in fact, monosaccharides (simple sugars), this excess of starches in your diet is commonly referred to as "Amidon." Let's continue our discussion on great apes to further examine their diet. Well, it is established that the orangutans can stay for up to three months below the trees, never get off the ground and therefore eating only fruit produced by trees. The gorillas are rightly defined by Fry "cars that go to feed and defecate machines" because their average day consists of 14 hours devoted to rest and defecate and 10 hours dedicated to research and food intake. George B. Schaller noted that they were eating forage daily in an amount equal to 10% by weight, particularly wild celery. It is hard to understand all of these plants can develop if one keeps in mind that gorillas, like humans (and we talked about it) do not secrete the cellulase, which is the enzyme required for processing of cellulose into a simple sugar. Clearly, this large mass of partially digested plant stimulates peristalsis dearly causing almost continuous defecation. But Schaller has investigated the matter and was thus able to ascertain that when there was a period of some fruit, gorillas clear of the feed, but fed only of that fruit, as long as there was none.
is still Schaller, very famous primatologist, we report an experiment done at the San Diego Zoo, where the gorillas if they were given plenty of fruit, did not eat more forage in short, the gorilla, put at a choice of forage and fruit, and chooses not to doubts fruit. What does this mean? Means that its natural food, not the crop, but fruit. Of course, rather than go hungry you eat anything. So, for that matter, when did our ancestors, through the forest, and allowed it from fruitarian this biome, the savannah, where there are fruit trees, not to succumb cerealivori and became meat eaters, with the help of third fuoco.Della ape what is there to say? Chimp is said to eat a lot and maybe this is true under conditions of captivity, an unnatural situation that causes significant behavioral disturbances, which may also affect the guidelines nutrizionali.È good, therefore, give validity to the testimony of scientists or scholars who have closely observed the life when it is spent in freedom for chimpanzees no person can learn about J. Goodall, ethology primatologist who has spent thirty years between them, which found that if chimps have a banana abundance, they eat only fruit and nothing else (until the time at 40-50). As you can see, the food habits of the three great apes, which many believed the title of a power failure at 100% fruitarian (and therefore the action obliged to take other parts of plants more or less), and in fact, from what has been said in the latter part of this stelloncino, documenting just the opposite, namely that these monkeys when they are free to choose their natural food is feed animals Fruitarians to 100%. And there is no need to extrapolate this evidence fruitarian Pongidae of applying it to humans because the latter shall prevail instinct of children, when it is not perverted.
We said, in the 5th paragraph of this stelloncino man not suited to high-protein foods, such as, for example, dairy products, seeds, eggs, vegetables, etc.., Not to mention the meat. Moreover, many of these proteins be wasted because the body expels, undigested, with much of the feces of these proteins (those who can not expel this way, if they are still too high, try turning deamination in ternary compounds, that is, sugars and fats and then again, if even that is enough if they get rid of overtime through the liver and kidneys). We must now return to speak of these foods high-protein, while to remember, if proof were needed, that the fruit is to be excluded from the list of foods that contain more protein and that this fact helps to make it fit for human consumption. But if we now return to talk about this issue is to highlight another fact of considerable importance and that is a discovery of the aforementioned prof. Max Rubner, University of Berlin, who made it public in Leipzig, a scientific conference with a statement concerning the results of his research on proteins (which he expounded in his book "Volksemahrungsfragen", in Italian: "Issues about the supply of the population). The juice of this discovery is that the degree of utilization of proteins of a particular food is all the greater as smaller is the percentage of protein that showed that food contiene.Questo scholar, for example, a kilo of potatoes is a relatively much more nutritious food for a pound with meat or cheese because the human body is able to use a variety of proteins from potatoes seven times greater than those that use eating meat or cheese, because the proteins of a pound of meat or cheese are concentrated, while the same amount of protein in potatoes is common in a mass of ten etti.La same is true for apples, which are very nutritious because their relatively low protein (0.35%) are used to 100%. As it is easy to understand, this is an additional discovery of Rubner and scientific justification of the fruitarian.
4. The UNCONVENTIONAL MAN fruitarian
The march back to its original human fruitarian is not a utopian design, not a dream is a reality. Having demonstrated in the preceding paragraphs that the protein load of fruit is the optimum for the supply of nitrogen and human, for a number of other motifs from different disciplines, the fruitarian, is the coveted final goal in a sense "forced" to all mankind, with what we have contributed to give scientific certainty to the root of the issue fruitarian.
However, in practice we must do everything possible to approach gradually, with patience and perseverance in this goal: we will be encouraged to do so from the fact that our physical health, intellectual improve our efficiency in a clear manner to the extent that advances toward the fruitarian to 100%. Once you get the feeling of being on the right track, streamline our supply increasingly, step by step. In the meantime, it should inquire into the experiences of fruitarian who is ahead of us to become aware of the level at which it has come in the work of reclamation of his life. If this level you are still modest, or even modest, there is no need to discourage this, but should use the level already achieved as a springboard in order to power then jump to the next level and so on, gradually, without stopping, never giving up on improving. Each of us is, therefore, going to become a fruitarian 100% full!
So: we think, read, listen, investigate, experience! We advance!
As all'anticonformismo Fruitarians of those already on the march or to become, clearly expressed by the title of this section, we should remember that this report has, throughout, a post-conformist. Moreover, Fruitarians not only, but all vegetarians are typically nonconformists. There is no doubt that we are still a minority, no doubt that we are against the current, against the principles of dietary and behavioral followed slavishly and uncritically by the majority.
But we must be happy to be part of this minority, which allows us to feel (certainly not in an elitist way) but culturally advantaged and most involved in relationships with others, to practice kindness, understanding and humility typical those who know more. The cultural conformity is prevalent today, we strongly reject that, actually leads to an uncritical acceptance of the views of the satraps academic culture, especially that of physicians. Of course, taking account of that bad habit, many passages of this report will show not only unscrupulous, but even disrespectful towards both people or categories of persons, whether of principle or common places from which we diverged more or less conspicuously. But our heterodoxy is supposed to be constructive criticism, even when it has the semblance of being destructive, we think, in essence, to act in defense of the free search for truth, believing that this and nothing else should be the aim of every scientific inquiry, when is conducted with clear ideas and honesty of purpose.
Moreover, it is well known that many high-sounding statements, even array of scientific, you are then apparent only or even the prejudices of the myths and therefore are falling dramatically, and you can be sure that others are destined to fall in the future, to the extent that advances human reason and the application releasing the simple common sense and / or elementary deductive logic. It is known that the prejudices and myths die hard, and then it's no wonder that even those on proteins are still so popular.
The fact that some of these false beliefs long lasting does not mean that they definitely have a real basis. A striking example is that we mention below. Back in 1914 a great scientist, Robert Banary, won the Nobel Prize for physiology and medicine for about a theory on the functioning of the inner ear and devices that affect the balance of the human body. " All the scientific world at the time, took up this theory and all the textbooks, secondary schools to universities, on the authority of the Barany, her back to treating it as a scientific knowledge is now clearly established and undisputed. Except that ... except that, in 1983, after 70 years of scientific conformity on his back, it was discovered during the test flight of the Space Shuttle, that this theory was totally unfounded and everyone immediately fell silent, suddenly, and since then no one has spoken more. Well, when this theory was formulated, no one had bothered to investigate its reliability and validity, much can (see example below) the uncritical acceptance of cultural authoritarianism! Sometimes, however, it is possible that some "discovery" or "invention" is Verified has collapsed. Here is now another case, more recent than the one mentioned before.
few years ago all the newspapers and weekly magazines reported the news of the "memory of water" story and put it in an uproar throughout the scientific world and was adopted (many of you remember him) "the discovery of the century." Indeed there were those who wrote that this discovery had to wait spectacular upheavals in all fields of human knowledge. "What was it? Behold, the famous British scientific journal Nature had given the news that a famous French doctor, Jacques Benveniste, the researcher had discovered that white blood cells of human blood, in the presence antibodies in more dilute solutions, they retained the ability to react even when the solution was diluted to such an extent that it contains no longer any antibody. Ergo, the water retains the memory. This "discovery" of course, upset the natural laws, but - coincidentally! - accredited strongly the basics of homeopathy whose fortunes, based, in summary, the efficacy of highly diluted solutions, was losing credibility around the world. Except that, after investigation and verification, it was possible to demonstrate that this famous dr. Benveniste had fraudulently used in his experiments, contaminated samples, of course, continued to provoke the reaction of white blood cells. After such exposure, the Benveniste, who initially had been classified as a "great scientist" in the world of science, suddenly became "a scientist of waste" and its discovery, the Italian newspapers, was called "a fake resounding "(Newspaper of 07.28.1988). We continue to bring examples of frauds, myths, prejudices and falsehoods, but for reasons of space we limit ourselves to the two above mentioned cases (We wish to emphasize the prof. Armando D'Elia, in his works, has often contributed brilliantly to "expose" other myths: that of the protein so-called "noble" and that the amino acids "essential", ed.)
can be drawn, in conclusion, a clear warning, addressed mainly to Fruitarians, which form the Brigade peak "around the vegetarian movement and to never be afraid to go against the tide, never afraid to defend in the face open the fruitarian and its scientific and ethical reasons: the weather is good man. The row, which is still so thick, people adverse to fruitarian, is likely to dwindle rapidly, it is generally uninformed be updated with love and patience. The truth will inevitably impose.
to undermine those who oppose fruitarian must before all things let him know that we must resist the temptation to passively conform to dominant views, which are often the mask of respectable major economic interests ....
Rome 1992
Prof. Armando D'Elia;
Coordinator of the Technical Committee, Medical, Scientific LEPAV - League for the live feed (raw food) and hygiene ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment