youtube.com — Picking oranges on our farm.For real fruits, really ripe, straight from the farm, 5 days of fun with great people, in nature, come to the 811-friendly raw fruit festival in Spain, September 12-16 2012http://festival.811-friendly.net

festival.811-friendly.net — Come enjoy the best season in the South of Spain. Come for four days to an Andalusian valley known for its well-preserved nature, and its rivers with swimming holes. It will be held on a long weekend at the end of the Summer, with plenty of sun, delicious and abundant tropical and local Mediterranean fruits, and with great like-minded people! What else can one ask for?! Our Festival is based on the idea of meeting new friends and sharing, in a natural environment, the best local fruits. The Festival will be held at the beginning of September, when the fig season is at its best, when the melons are everywhere, and when mangos, cherimoyas and guavas are really bursting with flavor. As farmers ourselves, we are able to find the best quality fruit, and fruits that are picked truly ripe.

hsph.harvard.edu —                                                        Fill half of your plate with vegetables and fruits.  The more color, and the more variety on this part of the plate, the better. Potatoes and French fries don't count as vegetables on the Healthy Eating Plate, because they are high in fast-digested starch (carbohydrate), which has the same roller-coaster effect on blood sugar and insulin as white bread and sweets. These surges, in the short term, can lead to hunger and overeating, and in the long term, can lead to weight gain, type 2 diabetes, and other health problems. Save a quarter of your plate for whole grains—not just any grains: Whole grains—whole wheat, brown rice, and foods made with them, such as whole wheat pasta—have a gentler effect on blood sugar and insulin than white bread, white rice, and other so-called “refined grains.” That’s why the Healthy Eating Plate says to choose whole grains—the less processed, the better—and limit refined grains. Put a healthy source of protein on one quarter of your plate:  Chose fish, chicken, beans or nuts, since these contain beneficial nutrients, such as the heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids in fish, and the fiber in beans. An egg a day is okay for most people, too (people with diabetes should limit their egg intake to three yolks a week, but egg whites are fine). Limit red meat—beef, pork, and lamb—and avoid processed meats—bacon, cold cuts, hot dogs, and the like—since over time, regularly eating even small amounts of these foods raises the risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and colon cancer. Use healthy plant oils. The glass bottle near the Healthy Eating Plate is a reminder to use healthy vegetable oils, like olive, canola, soy, corn, sunflower, peanut, and others, in cooking, on salad, and at the table. Limit butter, and avoid unhealthy trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils. Drink water, coffee or tea. On the Healthy Eating Plate, complete your meal with a glass of water, or if you like, a cup of tea or coffee (with little or no sugar). (Questions about caffeine and kids? Read more.) Limit milk and dairy products to one to two servings per day, since high intakes are associated with increased risk of prostate cancer and possibly ovarian cancer. Limit juice to a small glass per day, since it is as high in sugar as a sugary soda. Skip the sugary drinks, since they provide lots of calories and virtually no other nutrients. And over time, routinely drinking sugary drinks can lead to weight gain, increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, and possibly increase the risk of heart disease. Stay active. The small red figure running across the Healthy Eating Plate’s placemat is a reminder that staying active is half of the secret to weight control. The other half is eating a healthy diet with modest portions that meet your calorie needs. Read 20 tips for staying active.

veganhealth.org — Iodine Status of Vegetarians Iodine is only found inconsistently in plant foods, depending on the iodine content of the soil. Food grown near the ocean tends to be higher in iodine. Iodine is consistently found in only a few foods such as dairy products (iodine solutions are used to clean the cows' teats and dairy equipment and end up in the milk) and seafood (including seaweed). In a 2011 cross-sectional study from the Boston area, urinary iodine levels of 78 lacto-ovo vegetarians and 62 vegans were measured. People with previously diagnosed thyroid problems were excluded from the study. According to the authors, "Population iodine sufficiency is defined by median urinary iodine concentrations 100 µg/l or greater in adults and 150 µg/l or greater in pregnancy." Median urinary iodine concentration of vegans (79 µg/l; range 7 – 965 µg/l) was significantly lower than vegetarians (147 µg/l; range 9 – 779 µg/l). Markers of thyroid function were similar in both groups and in the normal range; one vegan and no vegetarians had abnormal thyroid function. Most of the vegans were making no effort to insure adequate iodine intake. Iodine deficiency is not as much of a problem for U.S. vegans as it is for European vegans, whose food supply contains less iodine. Studies have shown that vegans in Europe (where salt is minimally iodized) who do not supplement (as well as those who oversupplement) have indications of abnormal thyroid function.

scienceblogs.com — In most texts and sources that I've read, the germ theory of disease is stated something like, "Many diseases are caused by microorganisms." We could argue whether viruses count as microorganisms, but for purposes of the germ theory they do. (Most biologists do not consider viruses to be true living organisms, because they consist of nothing more than genetic material wrapped in a protein coat and lack the ability to reproduce without infecting the cell of an organism.) Now, let's take a look at the latest germ theory denialist idiocy I've come across. The first one, not surprisingly, I found on NaturalNews.com. Surprisingly, it was not written by Mike Adams, but rather by someone named Paul Fassa, who proclaims You have been lied to about germs. It should have been called "You are about to be lied to about germs." First, though, since this article wasn't by the usual science-hating loon Mike Adams, I was curious just who Paul Fassa is. I had never heard of him before. It didn't take long to find Fassa's Twitter account and then from there his blog Health Maven, which bills itself as an "escape from the medical mafia matrix." Interesting. Why does it appear that any time I come across a germ theory denialist like Fassa, he's someone who uses terms like "medical mafia matrix"? I don't know, but such people also tend to write introductory paragraphs like this: We have been taught to fear germs, pathogens, viruses, and bacteria that invade us from out there. This is the Pasteur model of disease contagion. This creates a dependency on Big Pharma to protect us from invading microbes, each having one form (monomorphic) and creating one specific disease. Pasteur`s model of disease won over rival Claude Bernard`s more accurate argument of the inner terrain. Pasteur`s declaration, though serving the coffers of Big Pharma, creates more questions: How come some get a disease that`s going around and others don`t? How do all these new bugs come out of nowhere to haunt us? Why do vaccines and antibiotics ultimately fail and create super bugs? These questions are answered by understanding the inner terrain and pleomorphism. Note how Fassa first misrepresents the Pasteur model of disease. This is common among germ theory denialists, in my experience. They tend to assume that germ theory states that pathogenic microbes are 100% infectious and always cause disease. Consequently, when people are exposed to pathogenic microbes and don't become ill, people like Fassa point to that as evidence that germ theory is invalid. After all, the germ didn't cause disease, at least in this one case! That must mean that all of germ theory is wrong! Concrete thinking, thy name is Fassa (and other germ theory denialists.) It's rather odd that even most teenagers can understand that catching an infectious disease is dependent not just on the microbe but each person's resistance to that microbe. This is the same thing that mystifies HIV/AIDS denialists, who seem to view the observation that most exposures to HIV do not result in AIDS as some sort of devastating indictment of the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS. Add to that a long asymptomatic period and highly variable rates of progression, and HIV/AIDS denialists, who are--let's face it--really nothing more than a subtype of germ theory denialists who deny vehemently that one particular germ causes disease have all the doubt they need. But I digress. Also notice Fassa's early and immediate invocation of the pharma shill gambit. If there's another thing about germ theory denialism, it's that those who cling to it tend to be extremely distrustful of big pharma. I realize that in many cases big pharma deserves a lot of mistrust; its record in many areas demands it. What distinguishes many of these germ theory denialists is that they take healthy skepticism and take it to a pathological extreme. They also seem to think that the reason that antibiotics ultimately fail is because germ theory is invalid, which reveals an incredible ignorance of how antibiotics work. Helloooo! Evolution? Ever heard of it? Bacteria are incredibly good at evolving under the selective pressure of antibiotics. That's what creates superbugs, that and our tendency to overuse antibiotics. But what is the "inner terrain" and pleomorphism? This is where we find the "intellectual" basis of rejection of germ theory. As is the case with many alt-med beliefs, this basis harkens back to "ancient" knowledge (or at least 150 year old knowledge). It harkens back to Antoine Béchamp, who did indeed postulate nearly the exact opposite of what Pasteur did: that microorganisms were not the cause of disease but rather the consequence of disease, that injured or diseased tissues produced them and that it was the health of the organism that mattered, not the microorganisms. Basically, Béchamp's idea, known as the pleomorphic theory of disease, stated that bacteria change form (i.e., demonstrate pleomorphism) in response to disease, not as a cause of disease. In other words, they arise from tissues during disease states; they do not invade from the external world. Béchamp further proposed that bacteria arose from structures that he called microzymas, which to him referred to a class of enzymes. Béchamp postulated that microzymas are normally present in tissues and that their effects depended upon the cellular terrain. Ultimately, Pasteur's theory won out over that of Béchamp, based on evidence, but Béchamp was influential at the time. Given the science and technology of the time, Béchamp's hypothesis was not entirely unreasonable. It was, however, superseded by Pasteur's germ theory of disease and Koch's later work that resulted in Koch's postulates. What needs to be remembered is that not only did Béchamp's hypothesis fail to be confirmed by scientific evidence, but his idea lacked the explanatory and predictive power of Pasteur's theory. Fassa is sort of correct about one thing, though. Béchamp's idea was basically something like this: The inner terrain includes our immune system, organ tissues, and blood cells. Those who stepped out of line from Pasteur`s dogma asserted that the inner terrain was more vital for remaining disease free than searching for new antibiotics and vaccines to kill bacteria and viruses. As an analogy, flies don`t create garbage. But garbage attracts flies that breed maggots to create even more flies. Removing garbage is more effective than spraying toxic chemicals, which endanger human and animal life, around the house. Similarly, adding toxins to humans is not as effective as cleaning out the inner terrain. As I said, there's a grain of truth there, namely that the condition of the body and a person's immune system does matter. Specifically, it is true that the condition of the "terrain" (the body) does matter when it comes to infectious disease. Debilitated people do not resist the invasion of microorganisms as well as strong, healthy people. Of course, another thing to remember is that the "terrain" can facilitate the harmful effect of microorganisms in unexpected ways. For example, certain strains of the flu (as in 1918 and H1N1) are more virulent in the young because the young mount a more vigorous immune response. However, latter day Béchamp worshipers fetishize this idea to the point of claiming that the "inner terrain" is all that matters and that bacteria and viruses are manifestations, not causes, of disease. It goes beyond that, though. According to Béchamp, it's said: Blood is alive. It is not a liquid, but a mobile tissue (Béchamp was the first to describe blood thus). The things in our blood are alive. And one thing modern medicine does not accept is that something like a bacterium can change into a yeast that can turn into a fungus that can turn into a mold. We've talked about this in previous newsletters; it is called pleomorphism. Pleo meaning many and morph meaning form or body. This is, of course, complete nonsense. Bacteria cannot change into yeast or vice-versa, while yeasts are organisms in the kingdom Fungi. Dimorphic fungi can exist as a mold/hyphal/filamentous form or as yeast, but this fact does not invalidate the germ theory of disease. Indeed, some of these fungi are pathogens, such as Blastomyces dermatitidis, Histoplasma capsulatum, and Sporothrix schenckii. The misunderstanding of microbiology required to accept the rejection of germ theory in favor of Béchamp's ideas is staggering. Yet they remain very influential. Not among scientists, of course. Science moved on a long time ago. Rather, they remain influential among cranks. By Orac

fruitarian.net — Fruit contains vital elements to make our body work and there is a great energy in their juices. These juices do not burden our system, but  pass easily through it, giving the body a more efficient energy system. Imagine a world where people ate only fruits. This will result in a healthy abundance of fruit trees, giving nutritious food to be enjoyed by those who wish to live an energetic and healthy life. The world will  transform in beauty to the way it used to look earlier with an increase in tree populations cleaning the air and offering hiding environment for animals of the nature, many of them are already endangered. When we  start eating only fruits and nuts the difference is felt very quickly. A sensation of integrity and a wave of energy spreads through the body. Another benefit to our health could be a psychological one, if  we think we are not causing the death of animals to survive. There is no need to make secret of the fact that when we consume meat, we are triggering a chain reaction together with all the other consumers, which will finally cause the death of a poor animal living somewhere out there, which we have never seen the face.The increase of our human races in the world and our wrong eating habits are the main reasons for the destruction of the forests and the right environmental conditions in which we live. The excessive grazing of the animals and raising of the crops do not permit the creation of a suitable flora which is necessary for the growth of the trees. This also means erosion, which takes away the fertile soil and poor peasants moving to the towns, which grow continually, creating more environmental and social problems. As for our bodies they are not designed to live sedentary lives in those towns. Degenerative diseases such as cancer, heart disease or osteoporosis strike us and we suffer.Fruitarian lifestyle could be a plan to stop the global warming and save the world as it will result the increase of the fruit trees everywhere in the world. It simply consists of collecting fruits from the trees, eating them and scattering their seeds around. By doing this, we will spread these fruit trees everywhere and will need no instruments to do that. Our bare hands are designed to collect and eat fruits. So there will be no need to harm the nature by processing, cooking and washing dishes.

discovermagazine.com — Thus passed the bulk of three years. Milton found that most of the time the howlers ate leaves and fruit in almost equal measure, but when seasonal fruits were in short supply, the animals filled up on leaves. Howler monkeys were finicky, though. They ate only tender, young leaves, and only the tips at that....They appear to use a collective information pool to locate their foods. They’ll just set off in a straight line right to it....The howlers conducted these expeditions over 75 acres, searching out as many as 25 species of plants daily. Some, like the Ceiba pentandra tree, were edible for only a few hours a year; others were available more often. Unerringly, the howlers tracked them down. The ranges of various howler troops overlapped, so Milton would occasionally come upon a tree filled with monkeys, with other groups in adjoining trees politely waiting their turn at the table. All of which suggested that the animals had an extraordinary collective memory, an unfailing sense of direction, refined social manners, and a built-in barometer of what foods were good for them.This aggregate intelligence allows infant howlers to mature quickly. After 12 to 14 months, howler mothers don’t want to see their babies again, Milton says. The babies soon declare independence and rely on the group for support.Still, despite the obvious group intelligence, the monkeys individually didn’t seem particularly smart to Milton. They were relatively dull and placid - and unobservant. I ate lunch for months in full view of dozens of howlers, and not one ever seemed to realize that I was eating, much less that what I was eating might be something they would enjoy, too, she says. You could make noises and slurp and carry on - whatever cognitive processes are required to identify the act of eating, they don’t seem to use them.But spider monkeys did. I saw them all the time when I was studying howlers, says Milton. They’d go roaring by like greased lightning. Spider monkeys are the same size as howlers, and the two animals share parts of each other’s ranges on Barro Colorado. But there the similarities end. Whereas howlers travel through the canopy on all fours, spiders swing along like Tarzan. Unlike the placid howlers, spiders are playful and mischievous. They’re terrible teases, says Milton. And they’re mean little devils. They remind me of people, she confides with a laugh. Although not specifically any of my close friends.Spider monkeys had no trouble recognizing Milton’s lunch. ‘Food!’ they’d shout. ‘Let’s see if we can get it!’ They’d swing down toward you; they’d threaten you. They know what a banana is. They have a keen idea of what a peanut butter sandwich is. You simply cannot eat in front of them.Intrigued, Milton decided she’d add spider monkeys to her observations. She thought it might be interesting to compare how the two species evolved from a common ancestor. But while the comparatively sedate howlers were a researcher’s dream, dealing with the spider monkeys was something else again. They were too fast for me, says Milton. So I hired a young man to work with me. He would run through the forest as fast as he could, following the monkeys, and I would come behind. We communicated by calls. ‘Whooooo!’ Like that. The sound really carries through the forest.When the barnstorming spider monkeys found food, they’d finally screech to a stop, allowing Milton to catch up. They’d just stuff themselves. Then they’d lie around and take naps.Unlike the howlers, Milton discovered, the spider monkeys almost exclusively ate fruit, which often made up 90 percent of their diet. Even when fruit was out of season or in short supply, it constituted over half their food. But ripe fruit is even harder to find than tender leaves. To get enough, the 18 spider monkeys on the island would resort to splitting up and trying their luck on their own. During most of the year the distribution patterns of their foods are such that if they went around in a big group, there wouldn’t be enough at any one site to feed everyone, says Milton. So they’d spend almost the whole day foraging in small subunits or by themselves. Then around twilight they’d begin to call and coalesce, and then they’d spend the night together.As a result of this extended exploring, the spiders’ territory was huge, some 750 acres, ten times that of the howler monkeys. And that’s a conservative estimate, says Milton. Two thousand acres might be right. If the howlers displayed impressive feats of memory and direction by finding young leaves, the spider monkeys’ long-distance forays after fruit were astounding. Within an enormous area they had to remember at least 100 species of fruit and where to find thousands of fruit-bearing trees. They had to remember when each fruit was ripe, how best to approach the site, and how best to return home. If a howler forgot a food source or a travel route, the others were there to take up the slack. The spiders, though, had to fend for themselves.And they had to know how to stay in touch. Howler monkeys tended to be quiet, communicating through subtle clucks and rattles in the throat, except at daybreak, when their eerie howls declared. ...Spider monkeys, on the other hand, were conspicuously noisy. They’d yelp and cry, whinnying like horses, barking like dogs - sometimes for hours at a time. ...And in contrast to the howlers’ community messages, spider monkeys believed in individual expression. Spider monkey vocalizations are generally individualistic. ...All that variety and independence requires lots of training. As a result, infant spider monkeys mature slowly. They are nursed and carried by their mothers for two years, and they continue to associate almost exclusively with her until they’re about three or three and a half years old. ...Why were the two monkeys so dissimilar? Milton wondered about the differences in their diets. Howler monkeys ate mainly leaves, sometimes exclusively leaves, a low-quality source of nutrition. Leaves are plentiful and relatively high in protein, but they’re low in energy-rich carbohydrates. They also consist of some 60 percent indigestible fiber and sometimes contain toxic chemicals. How in the world did howlers get enough energy from this unpromising diet? And why did they stick to it even during seasons when there was plenty of ripe fruit in the forest?Fruits are loaded with easily digested carbohydrates and are relatively low in fiber - they’re high-quality, nutritious food. They mean instant energy. On the other hand, fruits provide little protein. So, Milton wondered, how did spider monkeys get enough protein? And why, when fruits were scarce, didn’t they fill up on leaves, as howlers did? Why did they go to such extremes to find fruits?Milton began finding some answers to these questions in 1977, when she returned to Barro Colorado after completing her doctoral thesis. She soon conducted an experiment measuring how long it took the monkeys to process their food. I needed to look at internal features of the monkeys, she says. I thought that perhaps the structure of their guts or efficiency of their digestion might be influencing their behavior.She trapped howler and spider monkeys, confined them in pens, and fed them food in which she had concealed tiny plastic markers. I used a type of thin plastic material that I cut with very fine manicure scissors into little colored plastic worms, she explains. When the monkeys excreted the remains of their food, out came the markers. Milton could therefore measure the time it took any one meal to pass through a monkey’s digestive tract. The results were dramatic: howlers took 20 hours to digest their food, five times as long as spiders. ...When Milton came upon monkeys that had died in the forest, she took them back to the research station, dissected them, and measured their gastrointestinal tracts. She then confirmed her figures against published material on differential gut measurements in various primates. She found that the colons of howlers were considerably wider and longer than those of spider monkeys. Food had to travel much farther and remained much longer in howler guts, and the monkeys had room for much more bulk. As a result, bacteria had a chance to ferment masses of fibrous leaves in the monkeys’ colons, producing energy-rich fatty acids. Milton eventually found that howlers receive more than 30 percent of their daily energy from such fatty acids.... Spiders were far less efficient at extracting energy from the fiber in their diet - but they didn’t have to be efficient. They ate easily digestible fruits. By moving a steady stream of fruit through their gastrointestinal tracts every day, they obtained all the carbohydrates they needed and some of the protein. The rest came from supplements of young, tender leaves.It was a striking example of evolutionary adaptation. Each monkey’s physiology fit its particular diet. Spider monkeys couldn’t get away with eating a howler diet of mostly leaves. With their smallish guts, they’d never keep enough bulk around long enough for fermentation to provide energy. And howlers wouldn’t manage for long if they used the spider monkey tactic of eating fruit - their slow digestive tracts couldn’t process nearly enough of it. Besides, it took smarts to track down sufficient fruit, and Milton thought it unlikely that the howlers were up to the job. Nor was the howler diet of leaves up to the job of fueling the amount of brainpower necessary. The brain, a big, hungry organ, requires a disproportionate amount of energy, and leaves just don’t provide enough....The more I thought about it, the more it seemed to make sense that if you have a high-energy diet and widely distributed foods, you’re going to need a certain amount of ability to locate those foods. ...A scientist named Daniel Quirling had published extensive statistics about the sizes of primate brains. Spider monkey brains, he had determined, weigh twice those of howlers, 107 grams compared with 50.4. No wonder spiders are smarter....Compared with the howlers, spider monkeys were brighter and more lively. They matured more slowly and had more to learn; they made more ruckus, with a greater variety of vocalizations; they ate widely dispersed, high-energy foods that were harder to find--and their brains were twice as large. Why?As far as Milton was concerned, diet was the key to these discrepancies. Eating fruits fueled the evolution of the spider monkeys’ large brains. Says Milton, It would have been a feedback process in which some slight change in the monkeys’ foraging behavior conferred a benefit, which in turn permitted a modest improvement in the quality of their diet, which led to an excess of energy. Over generations, the monkeys that spent the energy on making their brain slightly bigger and more complex had an evolutionary advantage. Their improved brain allowed for more helpful changes in their behavior, and so on.Milton realized that if such a scenario was correct, similar differences in brain size should show up in other primates with similar differences in diet - monkeys and apes that eat fruits should have larger brains than their leaf-eating counterparts. Sure enough, when Milton checked the literature, she found the pattern held true. For example, of the three great apes, lively, quick chimpanzees, our closest animal relatives, have a bigger brain for their body size than do the slower, more placid gorillas and orangutans. Chimps take some 94 percent of their diet from plants, largely in the form of ripe fruits. Gorillas and orangutans eat 99 percent plant foods, but mainly lower-quality leaves, pith, even bark. Diet had to be the key to their disparate evolution.

www8.nationalacademies.org —  African Fruits Could Help Alleviate Hunger and Bolster Rural Development, Environmental Stability in Africa   WASHINGTON -- Africa's own fruits are a largely untapped resource that could combat malnutrition and boost environmental stability and rural development in Africa, says a new report from the National Research Council.  African science institutes, policymakers, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals could all use modern horticultural knowledge and scientific research to bring these "lost crops" -- such as baobab, marula, and butterfruit -- to their full potential, said the panel that issued the report.    Today, tropical fruit production in Africa is dominated by species introduced from Asia and the Americas, such as bananas, pineapples, and papayas.  Because these and other crops arrived on the continent centuries ago already improved through horticultural selection and breeding, they increasingly displaced the traditional species that had fed Africans for thousands of years.  The imported species also received the support of colonial powers who wanted familiar crops that were profitable to grow, and indigenous fruits continued their downward spiral of dwindling cultivation and knowledge.    With renewed scientific and institutional support, however, Africa's native fruits could make a much greater contribution to nutrition and economic development, the new report says.  Fruit trees and shrubs also offer long-term benefits by improving the stability of the environment.   The report highlights 24 fruits that hold special promise; some are already being cultivated in parts of Africa, while others are harvested from the wild.  Examples are:   Aizen.  Giving more people access to this wild fruit -- which grows in extreme climates with few other food resources -- could reduce malnutrition and mortality, the report says.  The fruits are a good source of vitamins A and C, calcium, and some minerals, while the seeds are high in protein and zinc.  This large, resilient Saharan shrub shows promise as a way to protect erodible slopes, stabilize dunes, and create windbreaks.    Balanites.  This small desert tree tolerates heat and aridity so well it thrives deep in the Sahara.  It produces heavy yields of datelike fruits, as well as kernels that are one-half oil and one-third protein -- similar to the makeup of soybeans and sesame seeds.  These fruits and kernels already feed families in arid zones where few other food crops exist, but their full potential is scarcely tapped.  The seeds supply a food-grade vegetable oil also used in local cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.  The trees stabilize the natural environment, helping dry areas resist desertification.   Baobab.  The fruits of the baobab tree contain a sticky pulp that can be dried into a nutritious powder high in protein, vitamins, and minerals.  The powder is stirred into warm water or milk to create a healthy drink, and also beaten and dried into thin pancakes for use months or even years later, aiding food security.  During the rainy season, villagers often store water in the tree's trunk for later use.  The sale of baobab fruits aids rural commerce, and the trees themselves -- which also yield a popular leafy vegetable -- are almost indestructible.   Butterfruit.  This small tree produces fruit that is mainly used as a vegetable.  High in calories and one of the best protein sources in the fruit world, butterfruit is especially promising for reducing child malnutrition.  Even now, these fruits help many communities survive seasonal food shortages in the harshest hot, humid lowlands.  Butterfruit also serves as a cash crop, pouring into cities and rural markets in large quantities.  And the trees, which yield mahoganylike wood, may have potential for plantation forestry.     Ebony.  The ebonies of Africa yield some of the world's finest timber and also bear abundant, bright red fruits that are succulent and sweet. These can be dried for use when seasonal foods become scarce. The seeds of some ebonies are also edible, and the leaves are used as animal feed.  Though the trees are known and valued on a local level, hardly anything scientific is known about managing them as food crops.   Marula.  This tree is a nutritional powerhouse, producing both fruits high in vitamin C and nuts similar to the macademia, high in protein and minerals.  The fruits are popular in markets and even exported, while the kernels contribute to nutrition and food security.  In addition, oils extracted from the nuts are also exported for high-priced skin care products.  Harvesting the fruits and shelling the nuts provide work for thousands of rural women who have hardly any other source of income.     Tamarind.  These fruits are a strong source of B vitamins and calcium, and can be stored for months without refrigeration.  In addition, tamarind's sweet-sour pulp can be preserved in the form of sun-dried cakes -- a simple procedure that perhaps millions throughout Africa could exploit for food security, the report says.  Already widespread, the trees have great promise for restoring damaged lands to health and productivity, and likely for sequestering carbon, since they are treasured and seldom cut down.

sciencedaily.com — Intellectual Work Found To Induce Excessive Calorie Intake The researchers had already shown that each session of intellectual work requires only three calories more than the rest period. However, despite the low energy cost of mental work, the students spontaneously consumed 203 more calories after summarizing a text and 253 more calories after the computer tests. This represents a 23.6% and 29.4 % increase, respectively, compared with the rest period.Blood samples taken before, during, and after each session revealed that intellectual work causes much bigger fluctuations in glucose and insulin levels than rest periods. "These fluctuations may be caused by the stress of intellectual work, or also reflect a biological adaptation during glucose combustion," hypothesized Jean-Philippe Chaput, the study's main author. The body could be reacting to these fluctuations by spurring food intake in order to restore its glucose balance, the only fuel used by the brain."Caloric overcompensation following intellectual work, combined with the fact that we are less physically active when doing intellectual tasks, could contribute to the obesity epidemic currently observed in industrialized countries," said Mr. Chaput.

dailymail.co.uk — A study has found that to get maximum defence against heart disease, you need to eat at least eight daily servings of fresh food. Healthy harvest: Research shows we need to increase our intake of fruit and veg The Government’s five-a-day advice has its roots in World Health Organisation guidelines to include 14oz of vegetables in a daily diet. But there have been doubts over whether eating more than this level of fruit and veg meant even greater health benefits. Now the new study suggests every extra portion provides added protection. Significantly, those in the ­highest category – eating eight or more a day – have a 22 per cent lower chance of dying from heart disease than those who consume three ­portions, the UK average. A ‘portion’ weighs just under 3oz, equal to a small banana, a medium apple or a small carrot. The findings come from an ongoing European investigation into diet and health, looking at 300,000 people in eight countries. Dr Francesca Crowe, of Oxford University, is working on the project. She said that although ischaemic heart disease (IHD) – the most common form – was less likely in those who ate lots of vegetables, it could be explained because these people might also have healthier lifestyles. However, the study specifically showed a reduced risk of dying from IHD of around four per cent for each additional portion of fruit and veg consumed above the lowest category, which was those who ate two or fewer portions. The average intake of fruit and vegetables across all the countries in the study was five portions. People in Greece, Italy and Spain ate more and those in Sweden less.   Professor Sir Michael Marmot, of the University College London, said the findings were of ‘huge practical importance’. He said: ‘Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death. A reduction of 22 per cent is huge. There would need to be big shift in dietary patterns to achieve this healthy consumption of eight portions a day. It is worth trying to move in that direction.’ Scientists have previously suggested 15,000 lives a year could be saved if everyone ate five a day.