All about fruitarianism with a long-term fruitarian, Lena
Responses, discussions, commentary, answers, reviews.
Charles Marlowe (TheVeganCheetah) has published a video about the termination of a youtube channel of Martin Louis and his reflections on his own content. The description of the video:
Earlier this week Marin Louis lost his YouTube channel. In this video I am reaching out to him, and showing support for his channel going back online. This is another reason why we need to move in a new direction this year with my channel.
Charles, you've been kind to me when I tried to start a channel a few years ago, I wish I could say something good but honest to you. Your vlogs are very good, I've actually enjoyed most of them from the beginning: your story is strong, you have a nice presence on camera. I think, you possess some excellent material for a documentary film - maybe you could find a filmmaker to work on it (unfortunately, though, it is hard to make money with documentaries, but if film is recognized by some festivals, you can be noticed by the right people in the industry). If you cannot make a film, right a script in your spare time.
Your drama channel has two flaws from my perspective: your provocative ideas are expressed in a too unpleasant way, and you do not research enough for a proper argument. I do believe you can find a good audience among people who approach veganism from various directions, but it is good to acknowledge that being fully vegan is still a personal accomplishment and a social position, and respect that as well. You had a good opportunity to bring people together with that idea, but the way you did it was counterproductive (if it was your intent, I doubt it though). Stay critical, but invest some time in improving your critical thinking. Good luck in LA.
My response on a new video by ModVegan. The video with a part of its description:
Can vegans support animal welfare campaigns without compromising on animal rights? Does advocating for some animals undermine our desire to see justice for all animals?
Gary Francione has long argued that Single Issue Campaigns are bad for the vegan movement. While I agree that many single issue campaigns make non-vegans feel better about alternative forms of cruelty (leather instead of fur, duck instead of foie gras). But I think some single issue campaigns can be great.
Margaret, I disagree with you and Francione on this one :) - well, on the beginning arguments. I think both ant fur and anti foie gras are useful, they brought real changes, including legal limitations, plus general public awareness about such types of problems. Your argumentation for anti cat fur is applicable to those causes. No one implied that people should replace fur with leather.
I do not like all-or-nothing campaigns because they are too broad and require too much change from people, who are not ready to abolish everything at once, and who will just ignore them. Incremental change, if probable, is better than nothing to concentrate on. Veganism, abolitionism and single issue causes can coexist. Also, killing animals for art (film) is my personal no-no.
I also found another video with Margareth on Francione:
Such an interesting conversation - thank you! I was in the linkedin group for ethical vegans for many years, it was exclusive for supporters of Francione. Unfortunately, the manager and I disagreed too much :) Margaret, I'll look up the kindle book, thanks for the info!
Fruitarian's Network I know an Abolitionist who was banned from Francione's page because she defended her friend after her friend was banned for some disagreement with Francione or the moderator. Then I myself got blocked from an abolitonist group for being friends with her, even though I'm an abolitionist who genuinely hates most if not all of the same non-abolitionist things that Francione hates. They're a weirdly exclusive little group online. The internet can facilitate that kind of shitty behaviour. I understand excluding non-abolitionists ("welfarists") but they go further than that in the defence of superficial idiosyncracies and personalities as if they were fundamentally important principles.
This is a familiar scenario for online communities :) That professional group never grew much, and became practically inactive.
I was asked this question by a very nice person. The first version of the question was (with a few additional details):
...do you think high fruit raw vegan diet is optimal for health? ...I honestly sense i am not going the right way, as I am not "glowing" on this lifestyle. Would love your perspective.
The final version of the question was:
...is this diet key to vitality and health, aside of course relationships, state of mind and etc.
In this semi-spontaneous response I did not touch on a few important aspects of the issue because the subject was a bit too broad and complex to give an comprehensive and definitive short answer. I also did not know almost anything about this person experience with this diet. The video is ~ 30 minutes long:
Even love is not an "unlimited resource," and fresh ripe fruit are certainly not.
In a presentation published on youtube, Chef AJ, who is certified in "Plant-Based Nutrition" from Cornell University, describes the concept of calorie density, promoting weight loss. She claims that you can eat as many of non-sweet fruit and other low in starch vegetables you want, because:
"...their mostly waner, and fiber and nutrients, you know, you actually spend more calories, chewing non-starchy vegetables and digesting them than in the calories."
Why every lecture like this must contain some nonsense? One hour chewing burns only ~10 food calories!
There is no scientific evidence to show that any vegetables or fruits have a zero or negative caloric impact.
Celery has a thermic effect - "the amount of energy expenditure above the resting metabolic rate due to the cost of processing food for use and storage" - of ~ 8%, much less than the 100% or more required for a food to have "negative calories". A large piece of celery provides almost 10 calories, but the body expends less than one calorie processing it.
Proteins require the most energy to digest but their a thermic effect is 20%–30% only. A commonly used estimate of the thermic effect of food is about 10% of one's caloric intake.
Chef AJ replied through her profile Wight Loss Wednesday:
After I provided a link to this article with explanation to a viewer who replied to me with ""chewing and digesting".. digestion does not come for free," Chef AJ responded to my comment as well. First she said:
I was talking about BMR.
Then she shared this link:
In this article they just repeat the false information:
Consuming Negative calorie foods will burn more calories in chewing and digestion process as compared to the calories they provide for the body. Eating these foods will create a calorie-deficit in the body, ultimately helps in weight loss.
Towards the end they admit that:
Our body uses around 10-15% of calories of the food we eat, in order to digest them. Our body also needs energy to break down the food compound and absorb carbohydrates, proteins, minerals fats, and other nutrients. Our body generates energy from the food we intake.
But they also imply that much more energy is burned by absorption of food. After mechanical and chemical digestion, which require most energy to break the pieces and molecules of food down, they assume or try to make you believe that absorption through the small intestine into the blood would take more than 90% of the calories of these foods for the total to be negative! There is no known scientific foundation for such assumptions. It even goes against common sense to think that the mere absorption of broken down nutrients would require ~10 times more energy than actual breaking down, or to imagine that we could survive with such inefficient bodies. Even if this were true, nutrients from other foods would require similar amounts of energy to be absorbed.
Basal metabolic rate (BMR) is the minimal rate of energy expenditure, usually per day or hour. The measurement requires a strict set of criteria to be met, which include being in a physically and psychologically undisturbed state, in a thermally neutral environment, and in the post-absorptive state (after the food is digested). I do not know what exactly Chef AJ was pointing towards here.
They also list most non-starchy vegetables and fruits as calorie-negative! How irresponsible. The site, which calls itself "the ultimate guide," does not list any links to their sources, of course. They don't even have about pare or sign their articles. This site looks like an advertisement project, with the content created entirely by paid-per-word copywriters.
As a fruitarian whose energy comes primarily from those fruits, I would be dead not only by now, but after any couple of month period in the last 20+ years.
These are the fruits and vegetables they list:
Please, don't believe just anyone on the internet, always check the information you rely upon.
Commentary on relevant to fruitarianism publications, events and products, reviews of books, films, channels, sites and ideas of public personas from fruitarian perspective .
Fruitarian dialogues, answers to questions related to fruitarianism.
Top 20 Tags
New and Revised Responses
- Poor Trees
- FruitDate - Fruitarian Dating Group Note
- Response to Eisel Mazard (a-bas-le-ciel) - Unnatural Vegan vs. Ethical Vegans
- Response to Charles Marlowe (VeganCheetah) about Vegan Drama
- Single-Issue Ethical Campaigns
- Is High Fruit Raw Vegan Diet the Key to Vitality and Health?
- To Claire Michelle: Abundance, Trusting Universe, Law of Attraction, Travel, Love, Trust
- To Chef AJ about Calories in Non-Starchy Vegetables
- One-Day Fruit Diet
- On "Unusable Protein" to Don
- Fruitarian Notes on Humanist Manifesto
- Anyone Can Be Real Vegan
Percy Bysshe Shelley
They are called into existence by human artifice that they may drag out a short and miserable existence of slavery and disease, that their bodies may be mutilated, their social feelings outraged. It were much better that a sentient being should never have existed, than that it should have existed only to endure unmitigated misery.
Minerals (nutrients) are inorganic substances (contain no carbon) that are necessary for normal body function and development.
Macro-minerals are needed in large doses (approximate recommended daily intake, milligrams (mg) per day ):
- potassium, K (3500 mg) - metal, ions are necessary for the function of all living cells;
- chloride, Cl− (3400 mg) - essential electrolyte in all body fluids;
- sodium, Na, natrium (2400 mg) - metal, essential for all animals and some plants;
- calcium, Ca (1000 mg) - metal, essential for living organisms, produced in supernova nucleosynthesis;
- phosphorus, P (1000 mg) - in the form of the phosphate is required for all known forms of life;
- choline (425 - 550 mg) - essential vitamin-like (vitamin B4) nutrient, synthesized in human body, but not sufficiently;
- magnesium, Mg (350 mg) - metal, essential for all known living organisms;
Trace minerals are needed in very small amounts (recommended daily intake, milligrams (mg) or micrograms (mcg) per day:
- iron, Fe (15 mg) - metal, found in nearly all living organisms;
- zinc, Zn (8 - 11 mg) - metal, essential for humans and other organisms;
- manganese, Mn (5 mg) - metal, toxic essential trace element;
- fluorine, F, fluoride ion, F− (3 - 4 mg) - a beneficial poisonous element, essential for bone solidity;
- copper, Cu (2 mg) - metal, essential to all living organisms;
- iodine, I (150 mcg) - a key component of thyroid hormones;
- selenium, Se (35 mcg) - toxic in large doses, essential micronutrient for animals;
- chromium, Cr (30 mcg) - chromium (III) is questionably essential for humans.