The analysis (review) below is made from a fruitarian perspective of one person (me) and may be one-sided.

30Bad Method

30bananasaday.com (30BaD) is a site of a vibrant law-fat raw vegan (lfrv) community with own methodology to achieve excellent health, based on a 80/10/10 diet (or simply 811: 80% carbohydrates, 10% protein and 10% fat) by Douglas Graham.

The site on NING was started by Freelee (video), a beautiful athletic girl, and later driven also by DurianRider (DR, Harley Johnstone), a brilliant endurance athlete, long term raw vegan (video). Their charisma, hard work, ethical values, great achievements, openness and fairness about their experiences attracted many people to the fruitarian lifestyle, that also includes regular vigorous exercise, plenty of sleep and good hydration.

This diet could be suitable for people with special needs:

• Competitive athletes, because they can learn how to achieve more from eating more carbohydrates from fruit.
• Those of us who has some kind of eating disorders, especially when fear and dislike of food are involved: these people can learn to develop healthy attitude towards own body and digestion processes, and learn how to stay fit and shapely, eating a lot and nourishing their bodies properly. 
• People with a history of poor diets: standard American diet (SAD) and such, because they can find plenty of information on negative effects of such diet and the possible way to switch to a much better one for their health, ethics and environment, comfortably continuing to eat big amounts of food.
• If you are new to raw vegan diet or just want to learn more from nice people you would certainly find interesting stuff on 30BaD. I've gotten few great pieces of advise on the site (example).

The community is quite a fun to be in and one can meet amazing and supportive people there.

However, there are some inconsistencies and difficulties with this diet plan from a fruitarian point of view. Unfortunately, I could not find all the answers on some of my questions about nuances of the method, and would like to talk about it here, basing on the information I have from the forum of the site. I could miss something big though, and if you know it, please, let me know.

Variances

Caloric model

Caloric recommendations

This is one of the first troubles I encountered by learning about this diet. That's why I wrote an article on caloric intake recommendations couple of weeks ago: Energy in Food.

Short before that I commented on a topic on 30BaD about a vegan athlete, Tim Van Orden, whose caloric intake is around 1,500-2,000 calories, which is much less than guys on 30bad - the low-fat-raw-vegan site - recommend and hold to be possible (thread). This is what I said:

"I agree that "Raw food is a much more efficient fuel." Measurement of kilo-calories in food is done by exploding this food. I believe that there is something more to it than modern science counts, or they need a better measurement apparatus; maybe raw fruits contains more energy, or in more usable form for our body." (I corrected the grammar a bit, I still work on my English).

And after that I read one of their new rules:

"We recommend womyn eat at least 2500 calories from fruits daily and men get at least 3000 calories and more if one wants to live an active, passionate lifestyle.  ... Topics/posts/members that constantly question the validity of the calorie model will be deleted..."

Obviously, I am very pro-fruit person, because I live on fruit and do not limit their intake, but I was astonished by this restriction to even discuss such a controversial and not well studied yet subject. I believe in freedom of thought and in truthful unobstructed communication. Questioning things is a moving force of cognition, and I am very sad that my favorite community, which I was promoting for more than a year, tries to to take away my right to do it.

No Formula

On the site they advise to intake minimum 2500 calories per day for females and 3000 for males, without any consideration of other factors, normally used in dietology (body weight, height and many others). They do not provide any formula for individual needs, even that one that Graham, the author of 811 diet uses, which was provided by one kind member but deleted from the discussion afterwords. According to this formula, an intensively exercising person (a serious athlete) should take 20 times her/his desired body weight in pounds, in calories per day.

For example, my number by this formula - not even taking into consideration widely recognized counting methods, according to which I need less - is lower than the recommended on the site, but I was recommended to take the listed minimum anyway. Why? The only explanation to this I found is: "It works". May be, for some people. But why my questions were deleted? Why my citation of Graham's site were called "taken out of context" without any explanation? I am almost sure they weren't.

Why do they advise the same minimum to people with all kind of body mass and height?..

Interpretation of caloric tables

On the site we are told that not only cooked food calories are "bad", but also the calories from fat. It is also said that amount of calories from fruit are vary significantly from the data provided by science. Why? Because it feels like it by certain people. And this is for some types of fruit only: watermelons and melons are the main example, their calories are supposed to be insignificant:

"Like I have said in the past, after many years experimenting with meeting my daily calorie needs- melon calories are negligible. ...from much experience with monitoring energy levels, mood, appetite etc after eating melon."

On my question: "5 kg melon, assuming that is has 4kg edible, is ~1000 calories worth. It has been estimated that the body will use up to 25% of calories of protein or carbohydrates to digest those nutrients, but this is already counted in estimations of usage and recommendations. So, how could 750-1000 calories be insignificant?"

I have not gotten any further explanation, and I notices that other practitioners on the forum use the same approach, for example, buying a fruit juice or smoothie they don't believe the number of calories on the packaging, because they get hungry or just feel in a special way soon after. What is that as not doubting and disagreeing with the accepted calorie model? Why then

Topics/posts/members that constantly question the validity of the calorie model will be deleted..."

What caloric model? As I see it, only one interpretation of caloric model is permitted on this site and it is  a very inaccurate and incomplete one.

Caloric assimilation

As it already has been partly accepted by the 30Bad team that our bodies not always can assimilate all available energy from different foods or use them for energy immediately or store as glucose for a day, without storing as fat, - it mostly depends on the digestive ability on the organism - they do not seem to recognize that by consuming big amounts of fruit, some energy in them, sometimes a substantial part, may stay unused.

I tend to think that a diet with immense amounts of food - even though it is such a great food like fruit - is a wasteful nutritional plan of low efficiency: a part of eaten fruits goes undigested through the body. It wastes its precious resources on dealing with it:

• producing digestive juices with body-made enzymes, but not absorbing them back due to the enormous amount of food moving through the tract without touching absorbing walls of the digestive tract, 
• mobilizing the immune system to check all incoming food for potentially harmful elements.

Our organism still needs to manage to keep the balance in microflora, warm the food up, and move it down. And if too much food had been put in the system, it eventually will be released with undigested and not assimilated content in it.

I have proven to myself by experimenting for many years, that one can live a good life on much less fruit than recommended by the 30BaDers. I believe it could be a much more efficient diet. I hope, the next decade of active life on 98-100% raw fruit will bring me even more certainty.

Increasing caloric intake as the main answer to difficulties

I think, the suggestion of eating big loads of fruit is suitable for beginners, if they straggle to adapt and experience constant hunger. Not everybody suffer much from "in-saturation" and adaptation to the new raw plant food during the first year. I have researched over 100 successful cases of vegan raw-mono-eaters, not all low fat though, where the biggest guys ate 5-6 kg at first, and then went to 3-4 kg. This people, like me, decreased amount of fat in their diets gradually.

I know on my own experience and that of people who went raw and shared with me their difficulties, that there are cravings that are impossible to appease even with enormous amount of fruit. The mind and body is imbalanced in the transitional phase, and it is matter of sufficient or somewhat increased amount of food, patience, cleansing, calming down, thinking and investing ones time into interesting activities - to succeed in the adaptation.

Amount of food

According to the recommendation for a female to consume amount of fruit worth minimum 2500 calories a day, the intake of juicy fruit and berries I eat now, and only the edible part, pulp, must be between 5-10 kg (11-22 pounds). The first number (minimum) is received by counting the medium 50 calories per 100g for usual fruit from markets, including a portion of high on calories bananas, which I eat only on occasion. The second number (maximum) is for eating juicy fruit only including lots of berries, watermelons and cantaloupes, which are 25-30 calories per 100g, and are basic of my diet: 9.5 kg (21 pounds) to get 2500 calories a day.

That's a lot of fruit. I am an experienced fruit eater and, and such amount of fruit seems to be excessive and superfluous to me, as for some others long term fruitarians whose opinion I aware of. But on the site they  suggest one must or can increase caloric intake significantly to "live a passionate life". I do not need to increase neither the level of passion in my life (or I would explode from happiness :) nor energy (I have difficulties to get tired), and I highly doubt that energy and passion correlate primarily with caloric values of food, maybe only for people who certainly eat too little for their needs.

One can reduce the weight of food by using calorie-intense fruits like bananas and dried fruit (not avocados, because they are high on fat, which is against the low-fat principle). The problem with that I'll show below, but we can continue to use the approximate number of 8 kg, which would reflect a fruit diet with some bananas or other caloric-dense fruit regularly. 

Nutrient-intense fruit are important in my opinion, and should be the first concern of a frugivore.

Cost of that quantity of fruit

Imagine, you feel all right eating so much fruit daily. It is recommended by Graham and on 30bad to buy organic fruit, which is great. But how much it is going to cost a regular person?

Counting the weight of pits, peels, spoiled, damaged and unripe pieces, one would need to buy as minimum 9 kg (18 pounds) of fruit a day or more on average. In USA in common supermarkets and farmer-markets and markets one can buy a pound of fruit, if choosing the full variety, for $1-7 and more, and you are likely to pay 10-40% more by choosing organic. But let's take a price $4 per pound, assuming a person has not enough time to go to the store daily, choose always right and bargain on sales.

To buy that quantity of fruit a day one must pay more than $2,160 a month on this diet.  Plus additional cost of daily greens (green vegetables are strongly recommended on this diet and are quite expensive and low in calories), drinking water cost, plus transportation cost increase by more frequent trips to the market place (It must be daily I guess, and you must be fit to drag the bags home :) - that's so expensive!

OK, what about males? They should count with 20% more (3000 cal for men is 120% of 2500 for women) - $2,593. Fabulous.

How can I look most of my friends in the eyes and say them they should spend that amount of money, or they never get enough fit and healthy? Guys on 30BaD do that to us. If we buy the cheapest fruit only ($2 per pound net weight) it is still quite expensive.

Members on the site say that most of them spend more than $1000 per month, consuming primarily bananas and dates - the biggest by caloric value part of the fruit intake and lowest price. We talk here about primarily non-juicy high-sugar fruit later. Well, let's keep in mind $1000-2600 monthly.

Don't you think that this is too much even for most Americans, especially for young people, and those of non-corporate culture? I have lived in many places, and cost of fruit is not much lower a year around in most of them, but the income of people can be significantly lower.

Average yearly expenditures on food in U.S. urban households: in 2004 annual per capita spending was $2,207. Isn't that a nice matching number? Ha, it is not per month - per year! Per month it is $184.

In 2003, US urban households with incomes in the lowest quintile (bottom 20 percent of the income distribution) spent $1,769 per person for total food ($147 a month), or 37.3 % of total household income. OK, these poor people automatically do not qualify to eat 811 diet, they can impossibly increase the percentage of food expenditure to provide basic needs of shelter. They could count on banana-diet with little additions: 3000 calories from 100cal/100g bananas only (about $3 per pound organic peeled) will cost them $135 (3 kg x $1,5 = $4.5 a day) and they would have $12 to buy a piece of other fruit each third day. Good enough for orientation, I guess.

What about moms with kids? In 2003, urban female-headed households with children spent $1,610 per person for total food. They have exactly enough to feed themselves according 30bad advise with bananas only: $134 (let's hope that little kids need much less food). Isn't it a better solution to eat less but more nutritious stuff, like other fruits?

What about wealthier people? Households in the highest quintile spent $2,737 per person for food, or 6.6 % of total household income. They could certainly increase the portion of money they spend on food, but could they increase it ~10 times? Probably, with dropping lots of stuff: real estate cost, education, etc. Would many of them do that? Probably not. Would some? Sure! Maybe they are the real target of the advisers?

Smaller households also spent a much larger share of their food budget on food consumed away from home than larger households. Working singles would have it especially hard to have money and time for eating and shopping.

Certainly with time and increasing percentage of agrarian earth usage for orchards, which is ridiculously low now (a few percent of total agricultural use), with smartly organized layers of trees and bushes and not for grains to feed the stock,  the price on fruit may drop. But it is not sure, how it would influence affordability of fresh fruit. Global changes would take time, and that would happen only if more and more people would significantly increase the amount of fruit they are eaten. And to tell them that they must spend on it so much now and ever or they are going to fail - is very irresponsible, IMHO.

All soon 7 billion people won't move to own gardens ever soon, even if it were easy and inexpensive. This is not the case, it is not easy to buy productive piece of land and live there, because if you need to transport all your crop anyway, then maybe it is better to pay somebody else for the effort to keep it efficient and save resources. One of the best economical ideas was and stays specialization, wasn't it? And I highly doubt that the global abandonment of cities and towns, de-urbanization, is sustainable. We are too many for that, we have already destroyed most of the wildlife to spread ourselves even more. It can be a great idea for some, but not for majority of us.

Thus, for now I concider 30BaD to be an elite diet, maintainable only for few. For them this formula could be quite suitable, because some people say they love it.

Bananas and Dates

They have been said to be the base foods, "bread and pasta" of the 30BaD diet by Harley, as I remember, and most members consume them in big quantities, usually in smoothies (diluted with water).

Bananas

Nutritional Value

The good thing is that the guys recommend to eat only very ripe bananas (many people would say overripe, because a bright yellow banana with few dots is not ripe enough in their understanding, only already fermenting bananas are called overripe there), because, as I found out, bananas contained only 1% starch when fully ripe (yellow skin) and none when overripe (with dark spots).

Enzyme amylase (ptyalin) in human saliva to break down starch molecules, but for that one needs to hold bananas in mouths for long enough, which is not very likely to happen by drinking banana-smoothies, so much liked and recommended on the 30bananasaday. But we have the ability to digest them in small intestine too, so, the 30BaD advise to always avoid yellow bananas with only few dots is strange to me, because I never had problems with it, and only in this condition they are available in most emergency cases I eat them, because it's the most popular fruit in many places.

There is a concern about high sucrose content in sugary bananas regarding insulin resistance, elevated adrenalin and triglycerides, visceral fat and hyperglycemia, however the multiple studies were done not with sucrose in bananas. Total sugar content is 23% in fully ripe and overripe bananas. Sucrose comprised more than 70% of the total sugars in fully ripe bananas and about 50% of the total sugars in overripe fruits.

Sucrose has a moderately high glycemic index: 64. What is more important, the glycemic load (GL) (combines both the quality and quantity of carbohydrate) of 30 bananas will be 287.   A typical target for total estimated glycemic load is 100 or less per day. As a rule of thumb, most nutritional experts consider GL below 10 per meal to be "low," and above 20 to be "high." If you are not overweight and are physically active, a little higher is acceptable. 15 bananas smoothie, considered as a good one meal on 30BaD has GL = 144. Still a lot.  

Bananas are mildly inflammatory food (only if eaten 100 g, less than one banana). By eating 30 bananas your inflammatory factor will be -1807, it's a big negative number that means that eating this way inflammation can silently involve every cell in your body and, over time, negatively affect your health and abilities. Allergies, joint pain, and premature aging are just a few of the common ailments linked to systemic inflammation. The formula used to calculate the inflammatory factor (IF) Ratings measures the effects of more than 20 different factors that determine a food’s inflammatory or anti-inflammatory potential, including amount and type of fat, essential fatty acids, vitamins, minerals and antioxidants, glycemic index, anti-inflammatory compounds. I don't know how reliable or relative this counting is, but we probably should address this issue. This method could be only another trick to sell a book:

Bananas are the poorest on protein among fruits (4.2%), to achieve recommended by diet 10% one must eat lots of other plant food.

Nutrient density (ANDY) of bananas is 30 - lower than of white potatoes (31). Examples to compare them with other fruits: strawberries - 212, tomato - 164, blueberries - 130, oranges - 109, cantaloupes - 100, apples - 76, etc. 

Research has proved that just 2 bananas provide enough energy for a strenuous 90-minute workout. No wonder the banana is the number one fruit with the world's leading athletes: 2 bananas, not 30! Many members are going on many days mono-banana diet and wonder why they can't hold and bit themselves up. I think, it is a positive thing they stop.

The guys on 30BaD have not practiced their diet for many years yet, we don't know the impact of large quantities of bananas daily on ones health in the long run.

Banana Industry

Rebecca Cohen in The Science Creative Quarterly, 2008:

"The large transnational banana companies that control wages, prices in the global banana trade, represent a real threat to small farmers. ... They are also one of the most environmentally harmful agricultural industries."

Bananas are produced in tropical climates only, which makes it impossible to use them in orchards in moderate climates - no locally grown bananas in the areas where so many people live.

Monoculture

For the most part, bananas are grown in large scale plantations up to 100 square kilometers. There are over 300 species of bananas, yet only one is grown for international trade: the Cavendish.

The process of growing bananas in Central America has caused a deforestation disaster in Central America. Until the onslaught of massive agro-chemical use in the 1960s, banana plantations had to have virgin soil from mostly rainforest areas to be profitable. The growing of a mono-crop virtually guarantees attacks by pathogens, and with no genetic diversity, the results can be catastrophic. This was true for the banana industry in the early 1900s. In the 1910s, Panama disease began to take out entire plantations. Not long after that, Sigatoka disease began to take down crops as well. These two diseases were both caused by microorganisms. Neither of them were a problem until the fruit companies started mass-producing bananas. The onslaught of these two diseases caused the plantations to have to pick up and move every ten years or so. Moving the plantations meant clearing even more rainforest for the virgin soil. (Tucker, 2002).

Wastefulness

 Banana trees bear fruit only once in their lifetime, therefore once bananas are cultivated, the tree is no longer useful, and goes to waste.

Banana plants take 10 months to grow to a fruit bearing tree. The fruit is harvested 4-5 months later, while they are still green. Only perfect looking bananas are considered acceptable; any that are blemished are thrown away. The United Nations Agriculture Organization estimates that 30-40 % of bananas are discarded based solely on appearance.

The enormous boxes containing the bananas are shipped around the world on freighters with intensive refrigerated units where the bananas are stored in order to prevent pre-mature ripening. It is estimated that this type of shipping accounts of five percent of world carbon dioxide emissions. Once the fruit arrives in the country of destination, they are artificially ripened in warehouses by spraying them with a chemical called ethylene in carefully controlled temperatures.

According to the World Wildlife Fund the banana industry produces more waste than any other agricultural sector in the developing world. It is estimated that for every 1 ton of bananas produced, there are 2 tons of waste. This waste includes industrial plastic bags that cover the bananas during growing stages.

Monopoly and Exploitation

Only five transnational companies, Chiquita, Dole (both American based), Del Monte (Chilean based), Fyffes (Ireland based), and Noboa, known as the "Bonita" brand, (Ecuadorian based) own over 90 percent of internationally traded bananas.

For every dollar spent on bananas at the supermarket, 5-11 cents goes to the plantation. Workers are being paid shockingly low wages ($1-5 for a 10-12 hour day of work). The work is physically demanding and workers may have to carry extremely heavy loads or stand for 10 hours straight with their unprotected hands dipped in a bath of chemicals (in order to wash the bananas), many of which are prohibited in North America and Europe. Child labor is common place. Men often make three to 4 times more for similar work than women.

Harm to the Environment

The banana is a very ecologically demanding species. ... Land is cleared in order to make space for banana plantations, but because banana trees shed no natural leaf litter to feed the soil, it depletes very quickly. Plantations are therefore forced to expand, and the problems associated with banana production grow. Deforestation and unhealthy soil cause erosion, and the runoff causes frequent flooding and damage from sedimentation.

Heavy pesticide use also causes problems. In an attempt to meet the demand for aesthetically perfect bananas, over 400 types of agrochemicals are used. In fact, more chemicals are used during banana production than any other crop with the exception of cotton. ... It is estimated that 30 kilograms of pesticides are used per hectare per year on a banana plantation, whereas only 2.7 kilograms are used for the average European cereal crop.
These chemicals can lead to sterility, cancer, and death. Insects become resistant to many of these pesticides, therefore stronger, more toxic chemicals are needed. These chemicals affect mammals, birds, and plants, and the bio-diversity of the area quickly disappears. Pesticides also destroy the possibility for pioneer plant species to grow, and the area dies. 

Although workers on organic plantations may still face injustices, the environmental practices are considerably more sustainable (as I was told they recycle their plastics), the crops are not always grown as a mono-culture, and less environmental damage is being done. Unfortunately, organics currently only account for 1-2 % of global banana exports. Please, try to buy only organic and fair-trade bananas!

History

Bananas were not brought to the United States for sale in markets until the latter part of the 19th century and were initially only enjoyed by people in the seacoast towns where the banana schooners docked; because of the fruit's fragility, they were unable to be transported far.

...

To make you feel better I decided to include a good thing about bananas:

Bananas are an exceptionally rich source of fructooligosaccharide, a compound called a prebiotic because it nourishes probiotic (friendly) bacteria in the colon. These beneficial bacteria produce vitamins and digestive enzymes that improve our ability to absorb nutrients, plus compounds that protect us against unfriendly microorganisms. When fructooligosaccharides are fermented by these friendly bacteria, not only do numbers of probiotic bacteria increase, but so does the body's ability to absorb calcium. In addition, gastrointestinal transit time is lessened, decreasing the risk of colon cancer.

According to a recent survey undertaken by MIND among people suffering from depression, many felt much better after eating a banana.  This is  because bananas contain tryptophan, one of the amino acids that make up all proteins that the body converts into serotonin. Maybe that's why banana-eaters are so careless.

Bananas could be OK, but maybe not in such quantities :)

Dates

Most dried dates one can buy in a store are pre-heated, it is not raw food any more. Some organic dates can be found sun-fried, but normally they had been previously frozen (enzymes destroyed). Most of conventional dates can be boiled, deep frozen, fumigated, treated with salt and vinegar, hydrated and dehydrated in the process of artificial ripening. To find non-frozen non-overheated dates is rather difficult but possible, one my friend did just last week, and even organic they are not very expensive, around $10 per kg (~$5 per pound) in Europe.

Dry dates are even twice lower on protein than bananas: 2.2 % of total calories, you should probably use them as an addition to other fruits. Dates are sugary fruit too, even when they are semi-dry. Sucrose percentage on dry weight basis in dates may vary significantly.

"Though the ratio glucose and fructose originates from a one-to-one basis, this ratio may change during ripening, usually glucose remaining the prominent one. ... availability of glucose and fructose is sometimes propagandized as a more direct, accessible energy source to the human body."

Glucose is fine, dates in moderate amounts are great, don't forget to take care about your teeth (clean your mouth) after eating them :)

100 % Raw

The idea itself is very good! I like to be 100% myself all the time and I hope to be there very soon.

But to what price and why? On 30bad you constantly receive the idea, that only 100% will do the effect on you, without reason for that provided. As far as I know, but I need time to check everything what I list below, and I invest some time to research the "why raw" subject and still do, it has been shown that:

Any increase of fresh fruit and vegetables in our diet is good for us.

Some studies (by Hippocrates Institute, if I remember it well) suggest that there is no significant difference in long term health impact in highest ranges of raw by caloric intake in your diet, but it changes significantly by each additional increase of cooked food of 5-10%. Thus, 65% is  surely worse than 75, 55% - than 55, etc.

But this is not a big deal and is a matter of personal preference. I do feel that 100% is the best for now for many reasons (why to want good and not the best?).

One bite and you are lost

It is suggested to stuff oneself with more and more sugary fruit to avoid any craving to eat even a tiny amount of anything cooked. Does it worse it? There are some studies that show that too much excessive sugar in our diet, especially sucrose as in bananas, age us sooner.

It is stated on the site, that all cooked foods are highly addictive. I know, that many foods, especially animal products, are addictive (Neal Barnard and others), chocolate, even rice and other plant foods, but all? I have searched for the prove of this assumption, but I found only one explanation by Victoria Boutenko, that the danger is again sucrose, that is formed by cooking from starches, but I have not found any proof yet.

My own experience tells me that unsalted un-spiced cooked veggies, for example, taste not that good after a while on raw and maybe for everybody else too; many times they taste so disappointing, that one never craves them again. I have not craved also many tested only spiced vegan foods: the taste is usually insipid, lacks on complexity. But I agree that not in all cases, sometimes it does feel so attractive, that one could suspect addiction.

When I asked why it is highly addicted, the answer was about test buds that are highly sensitive and it the food only touches them, you start craving more and more. No proof. And I wonder, what about food smells? The aroma of food plays a huge role in taste experience in general, and your food taste different (loses its attractiveness) if you can't smell it. And smells of various foods are all around us, if one does not live in solitude far away from humans! Would it be advisable to avoid any smells? Yes, it is helpful, especially for beginners, but hardly always possible.

Sleep and water

On the 30BaD we are advised to sleep a lot, even in advance, and to drink lots of water (minimum 2 liters a day) to urinate at least 10 times a day/night with totally clear urine (no coloring). We have already tried to discuss the water subject here (please, check it out, I won't repeat the main points here), and would like to add only the following:

1. In one of his videos DR scares us with red colored urine ("... in nature red means danger"), as a dangerous thing that can be caused by dehydration. This is nonsense, especially for fruitarians. It is possible only when you have blood in your urine and this must be a serious medical condition. In my long imperfect fruitarian years I haven't had nothing near red shade in urine, drinking only reasonable amounts of water. I urinate several times a day even if I eat fruit only (no drinking) and feel wonderful.
2. We need to sleep enough, but we cannot "stack on" sleep, as DR advised somewhere to be ready for the challenges of the new day. I listened to many lectures of respectable scientists in the sleep research, they said it is impossible to prepare yourself with more sleep in advance, and there is no any evidence that over-sleeping brings anything good, actually, it may be a worrisome symptom if a person starts to sleep hours longer.
3. Drinking too much water can interrupt deep sleeping phases (one must get up to pee), which is highly unhealthy thing. I tend to believe that an adequate amount of sleep is more important for our health than diet.
4. When I overeat (yes, even fruit) I need to sleep longer and feel less rested and concentrated in the morning.

Low Fat

Naturally developed low-fat diet for myself over the years I cannot say much on the subject, but I just like to remind everybody, that:

1. I could not find any conclusive evidence that low-fat diets are beneficial in the long or short term.
2. I think that animal fats and isolated refined plant oils cannot be treated the same way as fats in fresh avocado or soaked nuts, for example.

I do not understand, why DR can be so sure saying the following:

Id rather see people eat white microwaved GM rice with soy sauce than try and get their calories on a bike ride from nuts. Its way healthier. Ive done both and know what works and what doesnt. Nuts are great but they sure aint a healthy primary fuel source. Cooked starches are way better, fruit is the absolute best, no question. Put Alberto Contador on a nut diet for 2 weeks and even I could beat him.

End of the day its about having enough glycogen so we can think proper rather than be in a state of ketosis to maintain our 'purity status'.

I tried to understand that, developing conversation, I said:

"Have you heard about Tonya Kay - she is a raw pro dancer and I read somewhere she eats lots of avocados daily. I would certainly choose avocado vs that rice - I know the difference in my conditions after. Ketosis as far as I know happens all the time (the body fat circulates) and this is necessary in small amounts to fuel organs. Blood acidity rises dangerously when certain enzymes are absent or damaged or the body can't produce sufficient insulin. The production of glucose from proteins (amino acids) is concerning, (also the muscle loss), and nuts are high in proteins. Plus most of them have toxic enzyme inhibitors and are dehydrated (as dried fruit too)."

But DurianRider never answered this. Why use such extremes in argumentation as to put somebody on "nut-diet" for weeks? It is not a good style, because in this way we can "disprove" anything: e.g., "papaya is bad for you, because you won't be very well on it only". Why not to talk about differences between 10% calories from fats in the diet vs 25%? Or 5% vs 30%?

Ketone bodies are formed when the liver glycogen stores are depleted - when we get not enough carbohydrates that is. Our organism goes through a set of stages to enter ketosis, and in the beginning the adult brain does not burn ketones, but makes immediate use of this important substrate for lipid synthesis in the brain. After about 48 hours of this process, the brain starts burning ketones in order to more directly utilize the energy from the fat stores that are being depended upon, and to reserve the glucose only for its absolute needs.

It is quite difficult to get "under-carbed" and "over-proteined" on a fruitarian diet, nobody is trying to eat avocados or nuts only, right (I hope :)? So why exactly should we worry? If you are healthy and not drunk you should deal with reasonable amounts of natural fats just fine. Or prove me wrong, please.

Did you know tha fat is the principle source of calories in human breast milk? It is 54% of total calories! (Each 100 mL is 70 calories and contains 4.2 g fat - 37.7 cal.). So, is that because of stupidity of nature? ;)

By the way, ketosis is normal by fasting; well, if it is so dangerous, as well as hypoglycemia, why there are official links to fasting-resorts on 30BaD?

BTW, Abkhasians, Vilcabambans and Hunzans, the longest-living peoples on earth had fat content in their food 18%, 15%, and 17%.

Emotions

If not physiological addiction is suspected but psychological, why there is a prohibition in the site guidelines of talking about "emotional eating"? They think there is no such thing, that everything is a real need of the organism! Wow, this is an immense undervaluing of the role of mind in our eating behavior. 

We do not subscribe to the concept of "emotional eating" so posts of this nature may be removed because at the end of the day they lead to calorie restriction and 30BaD is NOT about that, this lifestyle is about abundance not deprivation.

Does it always true, the more the better?.. Is there a true abundance of resources on this planet? Calorie restriction is not about deficiency or starvation, it had being stated so many times!

And why "deprivation" - what about optimum?

Truth and Spirit

This chapter is probably highly subjective, it is my own opinion only.

"Tough love" and "boot-camp" principles are practiced on 30BaD, and you can deal with that, once you know it and if you have an appropriate set of mind.

If you say something against the accepted concept, you can be easily suspected as unfit physically, which must suggest that one can be fit only by the site rules and with the leaders ideal in mind. I don't like the atmosphere this type of communication creates. It is used as a replacement for a reason (argumentum ad hominem - person's ideas are not considered because of some irrelevant personal characteristic), thus it propagate lower quality argumentation.

The rules I don't appreciate either. They say, every forum has guidelines, - sure, like "don't be rude", "reply on  topic subject", "post in right place", "please don't discuss astronomy on our textiles-forum", etc. but not the kind that prohibit truth to emerge and inhibits creative brain-storming and truthful sharing of the participants, IMO. You cannot even ask questions that sound too opposing. I have not been to many diet-forums, but I know some software sites that spotted their reputation by deleting messages reporting problems with their product, because they were unwilling to fix them, and I hope this won't happened in any extend to a good community. Though, in this case there will always be enough newcomers who has no such information, they are the real target.

The members of the community are asked to not post links to anything that does not go in line with guidelines, and in fact, there are very little resources out there on the subject that would not contradict their concept in some part. It is a common strategy in marketing, to list the good thing about the product or service and find favorable information about it, but either totally exclude contradictory data or partially.

As we were explained on some point, the site is payed by certain people who like to have the things this way, all other members are only guests and must just follow. I wonder, if my guests would tell me they know another good method to fix a leak in my pipe, for example, could I possibly come to the idea to explain them that it is inappropriate to tell me that?.. Could I consider telling them my method is the best and the only successful one, because I am paying for the room we are in?.. Why would I invite this people at all, if I disregard their opinions, however sincere, founded and amiable they could be?!

This is my "tough love" to the team of 30bananasaday.com - why should it go only one direction? :)

Suspension

Dear readers, I have written the article above, because a week or so ago I was asked to "take my opinion some place else" on 30Bad and just follow the rules, which I did, I virtually stopped writing in forum to avoid any hypocrisy.

I stayed in the site to keep around 50 valuable for me connections and some materials I had there, and because I liked the community in general. I promoted it for around a year, since I first come to the community, I translated the stories of Freelee and DR in other languages and published it with their photos and links. This site was the main URL in our "Fruitarian" page on facebook from November 2009 to May 2010, because I was thinking that this was the best fruitarian community out there.

Today I was suspended without any warning, I've got this email on my mail from Freelee with subject "Suspention" and following words in it (among others):

We find this article to be misrepresenting 30BaD and the banana/fruit eating industry in general.
It is not in the best interest of the planet nor the health of members.

All my connections are lost now on the 30bananasaday.com, my photographs and blog entries vanished with all cherishable to me comments and personal correspondence. I was punished for doing what I was asked to and for having my opinion and publishing it in the internet. I was not even given the opportunity to contact my friends there last time. I had not promoted this article on the site or anywhere else (it was not even ready), and only few of my friends read it.

I can't say I am shocked, but I am surprised: I was thinking, maybe one day after reading this article 30BaD teem would disproof my points. I'd like them to be shaken, I'd like to discover that the situation is much better that it seems to me now or that I am missing something big here.

I fairly represented my concerns and honest opinion. I am shocked by practices of banana-industry myself, but I don't want to close my eyes on it only because they are fruit-producers and I am a fruitarian. To say that I "misrepresented" it or that my article is not good for the planet without any arguments is deficient in my opinion.

• Do you really think it is fine to give people impression that only by eating huge amounts of fruit they can be successful fruitarians or vegans and get no critique? This message is harmful and untrue!
• Maybe you think that to encourage people to double and triple their recommended by scientist caloric intake is safe for your members? 
• Do you think it is a good to preach that the whole fruit-families like e.g. melons are not really a satisfactory food only because of their lower caloric value?
• Don't you think you have responsibility to warn your members about actual and possible difficulties with the high-banana diet?

I genuinely want more organic fruit in each persons' diet, I want it for all of us, and I want our common good in sustainable ecological and economical way. I do believe that vegans and fruitarians should still make smart choices (organic, local, fair-trade, etc.) and that the rejection of unneeded animal products is the main step to global flourishing on this planet, but it should be followed by other important steps.

I am an economist by education, and in the core of economics lies the notion: our resources are limited, opposed to our unlimited wants and needs. Without balancing, optimization and improving efficiency we won't be able to make it in a long run.

Immanuel Kant:

"So act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world."

I agree, and I do my best.

Hi Lena

Sorry to hear of your experience at 30bad, it seems a lot of the best posters are banned or left and no longer post there which is a shame as it is a great forum in general

I'm also deeply concerned about the banana industry I came across this link a short while ago, and think at least organic bananas should be reccommended as essential rather than commercial bananas

http://fading-hope.blog-city.com/rotten_bananas.htm

The banana industry is being dominated by the 'dollar' banana companies of Chiquita, Dole and Del Monte - transnationals based in the US but operating around the globe.

Well, that's no secret. And just like most MNCs Chiquita, Dole and Del Monte have a great criminal record they can be proud of.

The criminal records of all three of them include:

~ Sacking/punishing/intimidating workers that try to get organised or join something like a union.
~ Paying farmers and workers miserable wages.
~ Forcing workers to work under miserable working conditions; e.g. workers are commonly poisoned by pesticides.
~ Hiring death squads (aka 'security forces') to fight local activists. Read this for a recent example. (Similar to the techniques implemented by the Coca-Cola empire.)
~ Sponsoring the White House - one can just wonder what they get in return.
~ Being responsible for environmental contamination due to the use of highly toxic pesticides. In this regard the tropical ecosystem is particularly vulnerable.

 Dear Lena, don't worry about that suspension. A lot of people turn competitive nowadays. When i opened our global fruitarian pages with our frugiforum including frugilove also as none- profit-pages, i was offering all fruitarians to unite and work together in all languages. They rest i will tell you in German in private.

Dear guys, thank you so much for replying to this post. It is so good to know that I am not the only one concerned about completeness of information on forums and questionable practices of the industry.

Several years ago I watched a documentary on banana-"wars" and I was badly disappointed how the things are done on local and international levels. I was trying to do my best in reducing purchases of bananas, but even to find fair-trade suppliers is difficult (I could get some only through internet). I think it is a shame and we should talk openly about it. For me personally, as an ethical fruitarian I tend to identify myself, to build an industry using a tree, which bare fruit only once, and destroy it right after the harvesting, is a questionable foundation.

The destruction of the environment meas the destruction of all leaving organisms in it. Few years ago I read, that banana became the most popular fruit in China, and I was thinking: is this industry so much less harmful than the meat and diary industries (they spread their too) that we must just accept it?  Why should we choose between unevenly bad things when there are so many good other options?

It is sad that people, who are so close in their basic values, can't find common ground to unite for real. For example, being vegan myself, I could not ever be together with vegans who claim to be able to kill any human who hurt an animal in some way. From another side, I cannot accept even the greatest environment where freedom of speech (assumed truthful, respectful and reasonable) is disrespected and prohibited, because even the best people could be mistaken in some points, one and the same method can not be perfect for all situations, and working together can help us to identify the variety of best choices.

@Rudolf, I have invited Mango and Kveta (do you mean them, or is there another Mango?) to represent themselves here as a great example, but they like to keep apart - I respect that. In the matter of fact, it may be my fault he does not want to come, I have refused to give Mango an interview few years ago, because he was using an aggressive script for promoting paper-books from Amazon on his blog at that time. We could gladly organize an interview, but maybe it is better to create questions for everybody here and on your forum, and publish all results on both sites? Recently I gave an interview to a magazine, but it was not published, because other fruitarians did not responded... We all have so little time...

Dear Lena, Mango was my fruitarian neighbour in Spain and i met him at the fruit-market, before he went to Australia with Kveta. Mango is still a fruitarian friend unless we lost nearly contact. May be we mail eachother in urgent cases.

I know about that paper-book story and i refused to switch amazon- or any advertisement on our pages.

As i love trees more when they are alive and in peace is the reason to block the release of my own fruitarian book.

I am not using paper, as raw vegans do, because i am an ethical raw fruitarian, refusing to eat roots, canes, green leaves or sprouts for decades.

Instead i wrote some 3000 articles about fruitarianism since the millenium party - and i am sorry to get a bit tired about marathon writing. more or less 2500 threads at vc..

frugivorism..

fruganism..

Fruganismus Frugivorismus vc-archive

To build a bridge to vegan cooked fooders i had been developing the frugan diet further , based on the 100% fruitarian philosophy in Germany, India and Spain.

After 43 years of hard work and investigation about fruitarian surviving strategies and concepts i  stopped exhausting forum-debates to get retired to be free again. I switched my pages nearly off and there is only one reason i kept them still running: Since years fruitarian members and friends animated me to continue. f.e. That is my 3th fruitarian forum inbetween many - i stopped writing there , as i was disturbed by advertising popup's and other problems. http://www.iphpbb.com/board/fs-41245119nx50656.html After that fruitarian "free"-forum i went to Switzerland to get my own webspace, without unwanted advertisements.

I'd love to make an interview with you together, what we will publish parallel on our sites, also i would like to skype or pm with you about our internals. Video-interview: To make a video interview is not very difficult, but of course a bit more work, as we have to send us our video file copies to put them together in one video..but it would be also fun. Hopefully i will come out soon with some fruitarian videos including my friendly guests to clear some things up. I saw your lovely testvideo- therefore i know that you are able to do it.

Fruits..

Honestly i am not a friend of fruit- im- and exports , as i prefer the local biological grown fruits - even when i know, that it's set up quite difficult for fruitarians.

About 64 % of the global agriculture surface is occupied to feed slaughter-animals and only 2% are used to grow fruit-trees.

Bananas..

Finally i want to add, that you are completely right about the banana industry. Bananas are only happy good and healthy, where they grow and ripe without pestizides and fungizides - just ecologic.

Love & fruits, ons@ rudolf

 PS: Naturegirl, Amit - I cannot understand how unknown people i never met can argue about other fruitarians, what they are and what not ???

Hi Lena,

Yesterday, I was googling info on the fruktifest and found a topic on it on 30bad and it was about apples too, which I found very interesting, and I saw your posts and freelee and DR response which I felt was really mean.

Don't worry, they always accuse people who don't agree with them of being over emotional because of undercarbs and dehydrated.  I feel this is a bullying tactic

DR even said recently on separate posts that no one was 100% fruitarian  including Mango or Anne. 

http://mangodurian.blogspot.com/2010/09/100-fruitarian-fruit-only.html

http://www.rawfoodsupport.com/read.php?2,168799,172111#msg-172111

I also saw him on the forum personally accuse Nora Lenz of being anorexic and not having enough energy, due to being undercarbed, this is really mean, and misses the point that we can adapt to less calories.

I'm not sure how relevant calories are even, Gorilla, elephants cows and huge animals build enormous bodies on leaf foods which are low in calories.  I know we are not herbivores but am mentioning it in relevance to the calorie argument

 I also do not agree with 30 bananas a day, people cannot detoxify on that amount and  I believe this amount can congest the system as much as cooked foods will.  Probably if you are an athlete this is ok, as it will be burnt off as fuel,but everyone is an individual with unique individual experiences on how to approach fruit eating. it is shame there is no respect for individual different experiences. Some of the posters I enjoyed reading the most have now gone either left or banned.  There are great qualities about freelee and DR (he is very funny) but there are other experienced people around with valuable information. They have not really been doing it that long and it would be better if they were more receptive to other experienced people.

I believe no other person can have the answers for us as individuals there is not set way to go about it which is why the mandatory 30 bananas a day and gallons of water, will not appropriate for many individuals.  Different things work for different people and we have to follow our own divine guidance , not someone else's.

Arnold Ehret said, on page 31 of mucusless healing system that no other program require so much individual specialisation and change to meet the reaction of the patient, because  each person was an individual and no patient ever reacted the same way to the same diet.  It is not right to say, there is only one way to succeed on a fruit diet.  I would be sick if I made myself eat 30 bananas.

Hello Lena,

I've just registered today, but i'm reading on this site for a few weeks and i really appreciate your detailed posts.

I agree with most of what's written in this post. i have a very big problem with the 30bad approach on healthy eating and with the attitude of the managers of the forums.

I think eating so much fruit and drinking so much water is crazy, and even dangerous for the long-term.

I already wrote more about it in the comments to mango's post about being 100% fruitarian.

As for myself - I'm kinda new to the fruitarian world, so i'm still learning. I'm still not sure what is the right amount of fruit for me to consume daily, but i guess that the ideal amount is more or less what you're eating, as i read on your "my way to fruitarianism" post.

That's it for now,

Amit

Thank you for the posts guys, and for the links, it was interesting to read indeed. I also have added few lines on sleep and water and fats to the article (thank you for reminding me about these important things). I just wish I would not be so busy now and could involve myself deeper into the matter. Please, write more about yourself and your findings (start your story) - people should know that there are various ways to practice fruitarianism. Every fruitarian experience is precious.

The key to correct Lifestyle is LISTENING TO THE BODY:  

Eat when hungry. Do not eat or drink more than what your body needs. When thirsty, are often confused with hunger ... and eating fruit high in water, completely serve our needs for hunger and thirst. You know when you need to drink water. In nature, frugivorous apes do not usually drink water.

SLEEP when your body will ask for and END (awake) when your body no longer sleepy and it is cool and with nervous energy. It's all pure logic. What happens is that our society has instilled in us to go against our essence. In our society the bodies are so stimulated, mainly by the additives in foods, which always altere bodies and nervous systems suffered heavy wear, so you never feel sleep as soon as a person with health, and the sleep will not be so restorative. In nature, there is no need to remind you that our cousins the apes, they lie down to sleep with the sunset and rise at dawn.

More about nutrition:

A healthy body, without significant additions to the Standard Diet, will ask the type of food it needs: food calories (the fruit is the ideal food for our physiology), leefy greens, avocados ...
When I speak of fruit and vegetables, I mean ORGANIC fruit and vegetables.
As for fruit, usually the base of our calories should come from higher-calorie fruit that we dispose: bananas, papayas, figs, mangoes, pears ...

The banana is as great fruit as can be any other. Bananas may have a low mineral content, but compensates with the full range of essential amino acids and high caloric intake.
The important thing is to think logically, and about fruit consumption, we can avoid nutritional deficiencies if we get a VARIETY OF FRUIT in their species and origin.

Low-Fat Diet: This is what we see in the percentage of fat content of most fruit (less than 5% of their calories from fat). When our vital energy intake comes from fruit calorie, our appetite to foods high in fat (avocados, nuts, seeds) will be minimal. It is also scientifically proven that our motor does not assimilate the fuel from the fruit if there is a high fat content in the blood. I feel more lethargic the day after the consumption of fatty foods (avocados).

I do not think that eating nuts and seeds is designed for our physiology: first by our ability to consume in nature and secondly because acidify the body (high content of acidic minerals) and have a high fat content.

For me the most damaging elements of the Standard Diet are SALT & FAT.

As regards the exercise, I think the same, LISTENING TO THE BODY. When a body is in optimal health, we will relish to run, jump,..., OUTDOORS AND UNDER THE RADIANT SUN. When I tell you running, jumping, etc., is when we can choose any athletic activity that we want.

Another day I write more... Sorry, but my English is not very good.
I wish you a sunny day!.

Excellent article! Thank you very much for this, I can't tell you how refreshing it is to be on your site and have honest answers to the questions I never dared ask on 30BaD. I don't know if you'd appreciate this, but there are a few typos in the article, that you might want to change: you say "$5 per kg ($10 per pound)", I think it should be $5/lb and $10/kg (or it must be another type of pound, because I thought 1kg=2.2lbs , and at paragraph 0.6 "woorse", should be "worsen" I think and "looses"= 'loses". 

I knew something about bananas being .. well, bad basically. I heard about the workers, but I never knew the way they wre grown is bad for the environment! And as someone who considers themself a vegan first (for economical and ecological reasons), I think it'd be pretty irresponsible to eat massive amounts of commercial dole/chiquita bananas.

And I completely agree that you CAN overeat on fruit, it's possible. And 100% raw is not the ONLY way. On 30BaD, I kind of felt that I wasn't going to make any improvements unless I was 100% all the time, which led to 100% raw - 100% NOT raw cycles, which also isn't good. One cooked meal won't kill you, better 80% or whatever than cycles of raw and non-raw (that really wrecks havoc on your body!)

Thank you Luis. Hey, you said:

It is also scientifically proven that our motor does not assimilate the fuel from the fruit if there is a high fat content in the blood.

First of all, please, provide links or sources, supporting this statement. Secondly, we were talking about differences between low percentages of naturally occurring fats in fruitarian diet, are there any studies about that?.. I am not sure that anybody can claim anything about that right now for sure: we just don't know. We cannot jump to conclusions based on few people experience only. As to me, I am very low fat for quite a while now, but I have not felt bad at all when I was eating some nuts or avocado.

As for fruit, usually the base of our calories should come from higher-calorie fruit that we dispose: bananas, papayas, figs, mangoes, pears ...

I actually disagree with that. It was very strange to me, that when I said on 30BaD that I can be wonderfully satiated and filled with energy for hours from 3-6 organic apples only, apples were trashed as an inferior food only because they allegedly provide too little energy and cannot compose a good meal, which sounds absurd to me (apples are the base of my diet in winter months). Later this thread was deleted! They can trash all fruits other than bananas with the same "logic", because because most fruit and berries are relatively low on calories - it is unacceptable for me as a experienced fruitarian!

Thank you very much Tina! That was certainly my mistakes - sorry for that, I am going to correct them right now (I just could not find "woorse").

I think, 100% raw is very good if one can provide it for oneself and feel good about it, but I doubt that to stuff oneself with food - even such a good food as fruit - to increase percentage of raw is very healthy.

We can assimilate only certain amounts of food, but we must deal with the rest of its excessive load in the body: warm it up, saturate it with digestible juices, full of enzymes and other compounds, produced by the body, then move it thorough the system and expose to enormously complex world of microflora (potentially dis-balancing it) - this all is extra work, loss of energy and other valuable resources (elements, which are put into the food, but never extracted back).

And yes, we can overeat on fruit, it happened to me. More than that, we can gain some extra weight on fruit too (this is totally denied on 30BaD), in fact, in the early summer I did that myself, because it was a season of my favorite grapes (Concord) and I clearly ate more than I needed to :)

PS: I added a new citation to the banana industry chapter about plant diseases.

HOLA LENA:

I note to collect references about blood sugar problems when consumed fat in excess.
But the best reference is the testimony of many people who were raw-fat-vegan and have diabetes, candidiasis, chronic fatigue. They changed to a raw-low-fat-vegan diet and solved their problems. You'll find many references in the environment of Doug Graham, Roger Haeske, F. Patenaude...

If you know the history of Victoria Boutenko, the health of her family degenerated again when they had a diet of fruits, nuts, seeds, and when they added green smoothies to their diet, they reduced their fat intake unconsciously, because the basis of their diet were greens + fruit in the smoothies.

About your calorie intake. Your body tell you need. If you do not spend calories in your daily routine, of course you need to consume less. If you eat 3-6 apples and satisfy your hunger, perfect ... I simply say that people who need more calories, it is easier to find with sweet fruit, without the need to consume fat.

MY MEALS TODAY: 5 cherimoyas approx. at 11:00... From 13:00 to 15:00 basketball. Approx. at 16:00, 10 bananas and 5 mangos... and later, if I have hunger, i eat some avocado (I have many ripe), red peppers and tomatoes ...

ENJOY YOUR BODY HEALTHY!.

Hey Luis, thanks for the clarification. My point is though that there no studies had bin done, unfortunately, and there is no other scientific proof that, for example, 20% of natural-fat calories is bad for our health. We don't know why exactly those few people feel much better, because there are plenty of health factors we should consider. I had none of those diseases, or any other for that matter where I could provide you with a fact of healing, but I can only say again, that as that baby with more than a half calories from mother's milk fat I did not felt bad at times I ate soaked almonds every day, for example. Thus, as long as there are people with positive experience of eating nuts and avocados (and I know some), I think we have no right to "forbid" these foods to anybody.

Your theory about Victoria's case is just a hypothesis. My personal opinion would be, that her psychical condition, lack of exercise and so on played bigger role than diet. But yet again, I myself reduced amount of fat I eat, so it may be true that it is better this way for most of us.

As to calories. I think there is no need to try choosing primarily high caloric fruit when you are more active, it is easy just to eat more if you want, that's all.

Today I ate 10 oranges and 200 g of green grapes (all organic) and exercised 40-50 minutes - it is not even 1000 calories! I must have used some fat resources I think, because yesterday I ate only oranges and apples, but I feel absolutely great and energized the whole day. The grapes were so sweet by the way, that I cannot imagine eating more of them. What for? I do not need "more passionate life" - it is way too passionate already :) And why? Only because some people say so? I learned to trust myself and train my body to understand what in really needs for many years - I trust myself more that people I don't actually know well enough.

I agree with you that there is no reason to think that a maximum of 10% fat is the right thing. So in your case may be correct about 20%. Everyone listens to his body.

I see that your health is excellent, because you use perfectly the few calories you eat in relation to your physical activity. I need more calories because my body needs more (hunger) ... sure in a few years my body will be cleaner and better so i take advantage of fewer calories.

Usually the people who leave an SAD diet and move to a raw-vegan, require greater caloric intake, due to poor assimilation of food, and poor physiological performance.

I am sure that a raw-fat-vegan person with poor health will improve by reducing her fat intake and substituting by fruit intake.

Logically, I would never forbid a person with optimum health, her regular consumption of nuts, seeds and avocados.

Today I have a nice sunny day in Gran Canaria!. Be happy!.

Hi Luis, your post skipped my attention, sorry.

I agree with you that there is no reason to think that a maximum of 10% fat is the right thing. So in your case may be correct about 20%. Everyone listens to his body.

The thing is: I don't know, and nobody knows for sure yet. This year I had probably ~5% of my calories from fat, but there were periods a year before that when I ate several avocados a day and felt the same well as now. Thus, I can say nothing about it, and there are no convincing studies about it out there. If somebody knows any, please, let me know.

I read that DR said:

Everyone is welcome to be a member and if they dont share our views, thats fine, just dont post anything we have to delete! :) We are running a banana cult and want to keep the forum on track!

I am a bit confused about his words, because, if we take my example, I stopped posting on the forum several days before my profile was suspended, promised not only to not question anything there but even not to "smile" on stuff posted and take my opinion elsewhere (I was even offered by some active members to join other sites to share my opinion), and I was clearly said, that this article here was the reason of the debarment.

To conclude the topic a bit, I'd like to say that "running a banana-cult" requires special methods for its realization: boldly pushing through the supporting ideas and suppressing its critique. This way is obviously working, these guys manage to put their message out there and attract many people. Many good things came along: increased popularity of fruit eating, awareness about importance of exercising and resting. And by the way, they did great on debunking this dangerous tendency to eat raw meat (so called paleo diet), and many other things, popularizing veganism is among those. But in my opinion, you cannot be real vegan without caring about animals' natural habitat as well, and from this perspective banana-diet is not the global answer - I wish it were.

But the biggest mystery about the banana today is whether it will survive. A seedless fruit with a unique reproductive system, every banana is a genetic duplicate of the next, and therefore susceptible to the same blights. Today's yellow banana, the Cavendish, is increasingly threatened by such a blight—and there's no cure in sight.

Joe:

Bananas are incredible: the popular ones have no seed, and reproduce asexually. Since they're all genetically identical, they are very susceptible to disease. In fact, today's banana (the Cavendish) wasn't the first popular banana in the US. That was the Gros Michel, the Big Mike, which arrived around the 1870's. By the turn of the century, Panama disease was wiping out huge areas of banana farms. The companies decided that the best way to fight the disease (actually a fungus) was to stay ahead of it, by consuming huge amounts of new land -- and to do that, they used their money and political influence to get the US military to help them (thus explaining the term "Banana Republic"). The song "Yes, We Have No Bananas" is said to be a reference to the banana shortages caused by the disease.

Eventually -- around the 1950's -- banana producers switched over to the Cavendish. The taste was good enough (most say it wasn't quite as good, although a few disagree), it was shippable (but not quite as sturdy as the Big Mike), and most importantly, it was resistant to Panama disease. Something similar could happen today, and so the author talks about attempts to develop new types of bananas that could replace the Cavendish.

Dan Wilson:

If you think Enron management was dispicable, wait until you read about Chiquita.

Kelly Jensen:

Although Koeppel tries to make the argument about how the only way to ensure the survival of the Cavendish is through genetic modification, he simplifies it far too much. Moreover, he ignores the fact these issues could be resolved with the local food movement.

Kelli Goodrick:

The banana that was around in the 1950's - the Gros Michel, bigger, sturdier and more delicious than our current Cavendish - WAS wiped out by Panama disease and after many experiments, the supposedly immune Cavendish replaced it. However, the disease has remained in Asia (Malaysia) changing with the flora there. It's very contagious and has already wiped out huge amounts (up to 80%) of imported Cavendish bananas in countries like Africa and Asia. So we may witness the end of the banana in our lifetimes.
You may say we could just develop another. Scientists have been working arduously for over 20 years. Bananas must have human help to reproduce, they're essentially exactly the same genetically, exact replicas of each other, which is why a disease can wipe out acres of banana plants in a few weeks. The author says that the only way to get a good banana is a genetically engineered one -like using pomegranite and fish DNA to help it ward off disease.

Lauren Cocilova

Think about the protests against genetically modified fruit and then ignore them because those (probably well-founded) fears do not apply to bananas and if you want to keep having bananas at all, they're going to have to be GMO.
So, yeah, the fruit that (proverbially) caused all the trouble in the Garden of Eden is still causing us trouble today. If you have to eat bananas, just make sure they're organic and fair trade -not for your own benefit, but for the immense benefit of the people growing them and the process overall.

Hi guys, some people ask me about issues raised in this article in personal messages, and the biggest part of the conversation on the topic is private because of that... BTW, this way it had been on 30bad - people told me their opinions privately, and usually hesitated to write openly, it still confuses me a bit... But some people try to participate openly, so I decided to add here a recent dialog between Bill from Volentia.com, a genuine supported of 30bad - his critique relates to this article (he corrects me on banana prices), and me:

Bill K.:

Welcome to Volentia.com, Lena!   p.s. are you familiar with the fruitarian site, 30bananasaday?

Lena:

Thank you, Bill! Yes, sure, this is my article: fruitarians.net/forum/topic/30bananasaday-com-Method.htm

Bill K.:

Thanks, Lena, for the link and your views of the 30bananasaday site.  The only part I had trouble understanding was your reference to $3/lb. bananas. I've never seen bananas for that amount of money. I usually see conventional bananas at a range of .39 to .79/lb. and organic in the .79+ range. Due to budgetary constraints, I usually buy conventional fruit and that seems to be okay with Dr. T. Colin Campbell, who is one of my mentors. There is always the argument, which I totally accept, that the consumption of conventional produce is still far better than the Standard American Diet and as such, should not be rejected, if price is an issue.  I am, however, after reading your comments, going to ask Freelee for her side of the discussion, as I was not pleased to see that you stated that you were kept out of site discussions and eventually booted from the site. I do know that DR can get a bit over the top in his remarks, but I always viewed it as exuberant enthusiasm that sometimes runs amuck. :)  I've never had any conflicts with either one of them and consider them, especially Freelee, to be friends of mine, but I'll still ask her for comment as I don't ever intend to be a blind sheep.  I think asking questions and challenging stances and remarks is always healthy, if its not done with bad intent or bad manners.

Lena:

Bill, thank you, I just checked my text and could find only: "about $3 per pound organic peeled". The skin is heavier than the edible part, and I have not seen that cheep organic bananas here in USA (I traveled quite a lot). In Europe they are a bit cheaper, but I was analyzing finances on US example, as one of the leading countries. In other countries prices may be lower, but income is lower too, and I keep in touch with fruitarians in many countries.

Buying organic bananas is almost a "must" in my opinion, because it reduces the negative impact of banana-industry at least a bit. I liked bananas myself very much (not overripe ones), but since I know all that I buy them only in need.

As I stated in the end of the article, that was my tough love to guys, but it seems they cannot handle critique. I was friendly with Freelee too, liked her, and wanted to have her interview (she agreed), but after this article she blocked me even on her facebook account (I found it out later).

It is their choice how to act, but I don't like how they treat people there (not me only).

BTW, you can post your comment to the article on the site (and I'll copy my answer), so everybody can read your input and my explanation.

Bill K.:

I did send a message to Freelee. I will let you know of her response, if she offers one. I haven't been buying organic because of my tight budget, but the local produce store that I frequent (in Northeast Philadelphia) sells overly ripe conventional bananas for .39/.lb and the Walmart near my workplace in Deptford, NJ sells their bananas at .49/lb.  The Acme supermarkets in the area sell their's for .79/lb., which is why I rarely shop at Acme or the other big supermarkets

Lena, I did chat with Freelee about what happened between you, her and the website and it sounded as if she felt that you were trying to promote a diet that was counter to the 80/10/10 concept and although the site is open for discussions, its not there for undermining a diet that has worked well for Freelee, Harley, Dr. Graham, and many others, and is the main reason for the site to exist. Freelee indicated that she'd gladly chat with you and consider reinstating you as a member of the site, if you are willing to accept the fact that the diet does work, if followed as designed, and that you won't try to denigrate it. I'm just being the messenger here, so hope you won't be upset with me, though I must confess I do understand her point. I understand your's as well, but I think in the end, the fact remains that Freelee's site is one with a defined mission, a defined program, and as such, is probably not too eager to have opposition or links to opposing views on other sites posted on their site. It is, in the end, "their" site and not a completely open public forum.

Lena:

Hi Bill, thank you for the interest to this matter. The thing is, my profile was suspended from 30bad several days AFTER I stopped writing there completely, and agreed with Freelee that I'd just communicate with my friends there and take my opinion some place else (by many members I was advised to visit other communities to discuss the method), it was suspended for the article I have written on another site.

It is very nice of Freelee to be ready to chat about it, but first of all, in my article I clearly say, that the diet can work for people, only not for everybody, and secondly, I cannot allow anybody to interfere with my right for free speech - I was polite and reasonable on th e30bad, I have huge experience in fruit eating and studied nutritional subjects for years, I already did agree to stop writing on the site, but no way I can promise to shut up and never question anything I think is ...let us say, not perfect for everybody, anywhere on the internet!

I am sincerely concerned with real status quo in banana industry and with image of fruitarianism, I do believe that truth and open dialog are important - if not on 30bad, then some place else.

Hope, you understand.

Bill K.:

She seemed to suggest that although you didn't blatantly continue to try to poke holes in the program, you did offer a link to your page, where your same argument was made...ie., you found away to sneak around the agreement.  (again, I'm just relaying what she said and am trying to stay like Switzerland as best I can!)

Lena:

Bill, this is a lie, I have not written anything in any forum on 30bad after I agreed not to. We had a mediator for this issue, our common good friend on the site, who convinced me to stop writing there - I respected his opinion, and I did. I was not active on the site for few of days when I got suspended, and I've got an email from Freelee personally, where she explained me why they suspend my profile: because of the article on the other site (the one we are talking about). I cited the email in the first adding to the article, and I still have it in full somewhere.

Thank you again for the interest to this matter, Bill, but I have no intention to get back on 30 bad - as soon as my account would be unblocked, I would contact my friends and delete my personal information from there - I was not given this possibility, which I find highly unagreeable.

And this untruthful interpretation from Freelee upsets me - I do not want to have anything to do with this all anymore. They lost one fan (me), and they most certainly don't care - they have plenty of followers. I am still thankful to them for putting a good fruit-eating example out there for all of us, and I really like some of their published materials. Needless to say, I share quite a few of their basic values and agree on main points of their advise, just not in details.

I am not trying to change anybodies opinion, I just shared my own. I was naive to expect that some kind of debate would take place, at least about the troubling banana industry (from people who advise to make them a base of our diet!), but I was just blocked... Well, if only few people care, so be it.

Bill K.:

I wasn't there at the time, so I am not taking sides.  I hope you can understand and respect that.  Also, there's always a chance that I misrepresented Freelee's comments, as I was not directly quoting her.  She certainly seemed to indicate that she liked you, still does, and that she harbors no ill will towards you.  It seems that you both write respectfully of the other, so its a shame that this has happened. I can only guess its a breakdown in communication via one or both parties and that neither party had a bad intent.  Sometimes, particularly when reliant on text and not face to face communications, misinterpretations of actions, meanings and intent too often occurs.  I've seen it happen often and not just on these type of forums.  It can happen via email and phone texting too.

Lena:

I surely understand and respect your position Bill. Yes, life is full of misunderstandings :) Thank you for this conversation.