Talk:Fruitarianism

Gorillas and chimpanzees

I believe we should add that our cousins (Gorillas and Chimpanzees are fruitarians)Adanna78 (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the voluntary human diet. You are looking for frugivore. Even there, you'll have problems. While vegetarian, vegan and fruitarian sites like to claim some primates (especially mountain gorillas) as following their chosen diets, it doesn't hold up. More reliable sources have corrected earlier studies. Chimps, for instance, are often celebrated for their tool use: primarily using sticks to get tasty (to them) ants out of trees. Can't be a fruitarian while eating ants (which are animals). Mountain gorillas get as much protein from insects as you would find in two McDonald's hamburgers. In addition to insects, eggs are a favorite, when they can get them. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

From Gorilla#Food_and_foraging "Gorillas are herbivores,[17] eating fruits, leaves, and shoots. Further, they are classified as folivores. Much like other animals that feed on plants and shoots, they sometimes ingest small insects as well (however, there has been video proof that gorillas do eat ants and termites much in the same way as chimpanzees.)[18] Gorillas spend most of the day eating. Their large sagittal crest and long canines allow them to crush hard plants like bamboo. Lowland gorillas feed mainly on fruit while Mountain gorillas feed mostly on herbs, stems and roots.[14]" - SummerPhD (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I really wish that people who advocate a fruitarian diet and use our ape cousins as an argument for it would consider the small amount of DNA that IS different between us and them. I doubt that we would have evolved such large brains without a large source of protein in our evolutionary history, but besides that, we are still different creatures and have evolved differently... even if (in evolutionary terms) it's fairly recent. groovygower (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted text on "Sustainability" protein concern

References do not relate to text - first one does not mention hypoproteinemia or kwashiorkor, second one relates to vegetarianism, not fruitarianism. Nirvana2013 (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

B12 claims, again and again...

Numerous claims re B12 have been discussed to death previously:Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive_4#vitamins_b12, Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive_3#B12_again, Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive_3#B12_is_not_in_yeast, Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive_3#Rebuttal_-_B12, Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive_2#B12_not_limited_to_animal_foods, Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive_4#vitamins_b12, etc. Whatever your source may claim (or whatever you may think it is claiming) is likely discussed there -- more than a little and more than once. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Chapter "4.10.4 Conclusie" of this page [1] of this literature study [2] includes the sentence:

"Goed gewassen veganistisch voedsel bevat geen B12", which means: "Vegan food that has been well washed, contains no B12".

This raises the question, whether also already the fact has been discussed here, that insects (in case they're not eliminated by insecticides), together with their excretion products, that (also according to the conclusions of this study) are contending it, put down a conciderable quantity of B12 on fruits, so that fruitarians don't have to eat animal food to get their portion of natural B12, but just have to eat sufficiently organic (or even better: wild grown) fruits, without before washing or peeling them. VKing (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Two problems:

• Your conclusion is original research and, as a result, of no use in this article.
• Insects (and their shit) are animals. Yes, eating fruit covered with animals and animal shit might contain B12. What's your point? The fruit does not contain B12, the animals and animal excrement contain B12. (Dead insects and cow/pig/chicken shit are not limited to organic fruit either.) Heck, skip the fruit, kill and eat insects or dig into some animal excrement. Plenty of B12... and perhaps more than a little bacteria. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny indeed, apart from meat, milk and eggs, one more animal food product is their excrement. But certainly animal friendly persons like vegans and fruitarians have no principal objections against eating this kind of animal food, (at least as far as it comes from free living animals, like insects).

But not only animal excrement contains B12; human does as well. Why do you think astronauts don't have to use any B12-pills? Indeed, they drink their own urine. Vegans and fruitarians can easily do the same. "Another cup of piss tea, maybe?" (B12 seems hardly or not to be harmed by cooking). "Or what about a shit-burger?"

This is nót animal food, so if your reliable sources keep stating, that "only animal food contains B12", then they're not as reliable as you keep saying !? VKing (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In my world, shit is not food, comes from animals and is not fruit.

If "vegans and fruitarians have no principal objections against eating this kind of animal food", we'll need reliable sources for that. As it stands, the reliable sources say that fruitarians eat "fruit", not "fruit and shit". Oh, and shit is not food.

Yes, human excrement contains B12. Human urine, however, does not. Astronauts don't need B12 pills? It's not from eating their own shit! A quick glance at Space_food lists a whole lot of foods from animals: puréed meat, beef tongue, caviar, shrimp, chicken, corned beef, processed meat products, ice cream, beef jerky, yuxiang pork, sushi, jellied pike perch, borsch with meat, rice and meat, dried beef, moose jerky, beef steak, etc. The space agencies of the world, you see, want to make sure their astronauts maintain normal brain function. They think it's kind of a big deal. (Incidentally, you cannot replace a substantial part of the water in your diet with urine. Indeed, astronauts do not drink their own urine, they drink water which is, in part, reprocessed from their urine.)

No, shit is not a ""natural food sources of vitamin B12". It is NOT FOOD, IT'S SHIT! To the extent that you wish to argue that shit is a food ... wow, just wow ... it certainly does come from animals. As the article and the reliable sources state, "natural food sources of vitamin B12 are limited to foods that come from animals." - SummerPhD (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, now you're gonna say that humans also are animals, no ?.

Oké, then it's time that scientists find out, in how far the B12-vitamins, that are put on fruits by insects, don't just stay there, but also move into those fruits. If that turns out to be the case, then (in your vision) there's also plant food, that contains animal food !?

But then we could say that the excrement of (certain) insects is nothing else than what's left of their digested plant food and so in fact purely plant food. VKing (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Scientists have "found out". As the reliable sources say. "Vitamin B12...is not found in any fruits....natural food sources of vitamin B12 are limited to foods that come from animals....fruitarians need to include a B12 supplement in their diet or risk vitamin B12 deficiency." Unless you have reliable sources to the contrary, there is nothing further to discuss here. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But those sources don't say that ALL KINDS of fruits have been researched. And more in special they don't say that also organic fruits have been researched. Very unlikely even is, that also wild ( = naturally) grown fruits were used in any examinations.

This, whereas especcially on these fruits insects have the opportunity to leave the natural portion of B12 behind, so that people who eat them in the natural way, so unwashed and unpeeled, in this way can get their dayly portion of the relevant vitamin, without using any animal food.

And what's more, sources say that "B12 has not been found IN any fruits", but not that B12 has not been found "UPON" any fruits. VKing (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This is just so bizarre. Essential fatty acids and B-12 are essential for human brain health (which many take as indirect evidence that our brains were able to become so large relative to our herbivore and entomaphagist cousins). If you really want to go on a vegan/vegetarian/fruititarian diet, then it is essential to take supplements since none of these diets are complete diets for human health. The idea that fruitarians are particularly at risk of developing Vitamin D deficiency is misleading. Everyone is, as it's something that cannot really be derived in large quantities from any kind of diet, but must be made in our skin by the sun. Lastly, a fruitarian diet is especially bad for those who have been diagnosed with cancer. Cancer cells' abnormal metabolism means that they produce energy primarily via the fermentation of sugar (glucose, fructose) in their cytoplasm. Most fruits are high in sugar. --Eve789 (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is we need more reliable sources here. Essentially, we have numerous fruitarian sources stating what fruitarians believe (which is pretty much all those sources can be used for). All other sources briefly address fruitarianism. Depending on why they are mentioning it at all, they say pretty much one of two things: 1) person X demonstrated this diet is insufficient by dying or 2) the diet you asked about is crazy because it completely lacks vitamin B12. If you can find reliable sources discussing necessary nutrients as they directly relate to fruitarianism, we can certainly use them. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Summary of recent revisions

Please forgive my previous lack of editing summaries. New to this and hopefully learning. As for my recent edits,Line 27: First sentence edits under "Nutritional deficiencies" are for steering article into a more unbiased and scientific stating of almost the exact same thing. The last sentence and it's reference have little to do with nutritional concerns, so was moved to "Growth and developement issues".

In the "Vitamin B12" section, the first sentence is edited because B12 is not limited to foods that come from animal sources, and the U.S. National Institute of Health publishes information on sources of B12 not from animals such as foods fortified with bacterial derived B12, and properly grown nutritional yeast. Perhaps I should of simply stated this in the edit, but I didn't want to be argumentative. So, instead I added the normal position of practicing fruitarians on the B12 position and added for balance that despite these beliefs vegans and fruitarians are often found to be more B12 deficient than vegetarians.

In the "Growth and developement issues" section, I changed language that claimed things as fact that are not proven as fact. I feel that this is extremely important in this section because although the vegan and fruitarian diet could quite possibly put a practitioner's child at risk, some fruitarians and vegans are able to follow their diets in a healthy and responsible manner. it is irresponsible to be anything but absolutely impartial and rigorously scientific in this section ... because situations where children are taken away from their parents from a lack of correct information is a very serious matter.

The "Notable adherents" section I put under a new section called "The culture of fruitarianism" because (1) I personally find the culture from which this practice comes facinating and wanted to share what I've learned about it, and (2) the "Notable adherents" section fits with the two other subsections more appropriately than being the section in which they fit. My intention currently is to find proper citation for this cultural section in the very soon future.

As to the removal of the citation to a statement I did not believe is correct, I was concerned that this edit would be controversial, however the U.S. National Institute of health does itself publish information contradictory to this statement, and the statement was attributed to the NIH itself.

Hopefully these explanations are for now satisfactory. I will do my best to include proper summaries of my edits from this point forward. Hopefully over time, I will learn all of the proper ettiquette in this.

Sincerely yours, DouglasIsai (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2011

A few problems:

• • "As a very extreme vegan diet" changed to "Just as in a vegan diet". Fruitarianism is to veganism as Neptune is to planets. Fruitarianism is a more restrictive form of veganism.
  • "The Health Promotion Program at Columbia University reports that a fruitarian diet can cause deficiencies" changed to "could possibly". Can vs. could is present tense verses past tense. As a current diet, "can" is appropriate. The source cited says, "Following this eating plan can cause your body to fall short on..." so "possibly" is an inappropriate apologetic.
  • The unsourced fruitarian claims re B12 in soil (actually, in fecal matter) and the unsourced correction of same, contradicts the reliably sourced claim that According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health "natural food sources of vitamin B₁₂ are limited to foods that come from animals."[3]. (Fortified foods are not "natural food sources" of B12, they are artificial sources of B12.)
  • "Like raw vegans who do not consume B₁₂-fortified foods" adding "(such as soy milk or nutritional yeast)," is a pointless list of example consumed in a different diet. Do fruitarians eat yeast? As it isn't a plant, it certainly is not "fruit". Vegans (being discussed in the section in question) also eat fortified breakfast cereals, nutritional supplements in pill form, fortified veggie burgers, etc. There is no logic to the limited selection of "fortified foods" here.
  • "In children, growth and development are quite possibly at risk". The source cited does not include the apologetic.
  • "Nutritional problems could include severe protein malnutrition, anaemia and a wide range of vitamin or mineral deficiencies." Again, "can" is appropriate. It should read as vitamin and mineral" as those who experience one are not necessarily clear of the other, kind of like "Shoes are available in a wide range of colors and styles."
  • "Several children have died as the result" changed to "A small number of cases have been documented in which children have died during a time period". We do not have sources giving these qualifications, see the next item.
  • "As a result, in some states children have been taken" (qualifier "in some states" added). We have nothing to base this restriction on. As always, we cannot assume we have all available data, such as articles wrongly claiming "There are no plans to release the film" when the editor really means that they, personally, do not know of any plans. As press coverage of individual child welfare cases is rare, we cannot assume this has occurred in "some" (as opposed to, say, "all" or "most") states. Instead, we state the simple, sourced fact that "As a result, children have been taken".
  • "The culture of fruitarianism" section is completely unsourced.

In short, there are a number of issues with the new version that were not present in the prior version, so I'm reverting the whole of it. I would ask that you take your edits more piecemeal: make more edits with smaller changes. In this way, your edit summaries can explain why you are changing what you are changing. Additionally, this will allow for reverting smaller chunks (with explanatory edit summaries) as needed. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've now made the revert I thought I did last night, while restoring the most recent edit of "Fruitarianism is even more restrictive than veganism or raw veganism, further increasing the chance for nutritional inadequacy." over the earlier version which seemed to stretch on the source. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs again

Prior discussion on Steve Jobs:

• Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive_2#Steve_Jobs_and_fruitarianism
• Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive_3#Steve_Jobs

Anything new? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

...and again. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

...and again. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

...and again. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

...and again. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sri Yukteswar Giri

I am removing: * Sri Yukteswar Giri, in The Holy Science, the spiritual leader advocated a fruitarian diet, though his publishers later added a note that the diet he advocated included vegetables, nuts and grains.<ref>http://www.yogananda.net/ay/CHAPTER__42.htm Cited in ''Autobiography of A Yogi'', Paramhansa Yogananda, USA: Self Realization Fellowship, 1946, Chapter 42</ref>

For openers, the text says he wasn't a fruitarian, but a vegan. Further, in the autobiography cited, the only mention of fruitarianism is as follows: "Our next visit took us to a hermitage whose guru had observed for the past nine years the vows of silence and a strict fruitarian diet. On the central dais in the ashram hall sat a blind sadhu, Pragla Chakshu, profoundly learned in the shastras and highly revered by all sects."

Instead of saying that Sri Yukteswar Giri was a fruitarian, it says a guru at a hermitage was a fruitarian. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC) -

I agree with the removal of Giri, good find here.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Nutritional Concerns

I personally suspect that frutarianism does have nutritional concerns, yet I think the current section claiming so needs to be fleshed out. "Adults should not follow a fruitarian diet for too long and it is wholly unsuitable for children" hardly seems sufficient. For now, I put in a "citation needed" tag, but I think it really needs much more than a citation. I am sure there is much research showing just how unhealthy this diet is. It would be nice if someone could fill this in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.214.34 (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Nutritional concerns" is the main section. This is followed by three subsections: "Nutritional deficiencies", "Vitamin B12" and "Growth and development issues". Those sections are well sourced and provide the basis for the sentence you've tagged for cites. If you would like, I can easily copy the relevant cites from those subsections to the summary description. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

What kind of fruitarianism?

The opening sentence of this title had to be changed as there are (still (we're working on it)) several definitions of frutarianism and "many varieties of the diet", whereas the scientists in the cited sources didn't mention which one of them (and so which de facto feeding pattern) they were judging. (Probalbly they mostly are talking about the only-fleshy-fruits-diet).VKing (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"According to scientists, fruitarian diets should not be followed by adults for too long[25], they are not suitable for teens[26] and are they wholly unsuitable for children.[25]"

• "should not be followed by adults" source says: "They add that even adults need to be careful not to stick to a fruit-only diet for too long. " and "a fruitarian diet consisting of raw vegetables fruit and nuts." Well sourced (and certainly not "only-fleshy-fruits-diet").

• "they are not suitable for teens" source says: "fruitarian diets ...are not suitable for teens" and "fruitarian diets: they include all sweet fruits and vegetable fruits — tomato, cucumber, peppers, olives, avocadoes, and squash. Some fruitarians add grains, beans, nuts, and seeds to their eating plans." Well sourced (and certainly not "only-fleshy-fruits-diet").
• "they wholly unsuitable for children." source says: "a fruitarian, or fruit-only diet, is completely ill-advised for such a small child." and "a fruitarian diet consisting of raw vegetables fruit and nuts." Well sourced (and certainly not "only-fleshy-fruits-diet").

The weaselly "According to scientists", however, is problematic, running contrary to WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. The scientific consensus is, clearly, that a fruitarian diet should not be followed by adults for too long and is unsuitable for teens and children. This, then, should be presented without the "warning source". Claims to the contrary (by fruitarians) should be "presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field" (which is to say the fact that experts in the field (nutritionists, medical doctors, etc.) do not accept the claims. We also run up against the problem that "the views of tiny minorities need not be reported" (what one fruitarian or group of fruitarians claims (B12 isn't important, you can get B12 (magically) from fruit, protein creates phlegm which will kill you, etc.) is the view of a tiny minority). - SummerPhD (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(A member of) the mentioned tiny minority hereby has the honour to announce that soon the article will be made informing more completely through the addition of references to scientific reports like this one [4], in which among others this expertise occurs: "Professor Richet found that fruits and vegetables do not induce serum diseases (anaphylaxis), while flesh foods do and interprets his findings to mean that nature vetoes certain proteins, chiefly animal, as unsuitable. Certainly no meat, meat juice or eggs should ever be fed to a child under seven or eight years of age. It has no power to neutralize the poisons from these until this time." VKing (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing particularly "wrong" with being part of a tiny minority. However, Wikipedia does not give much weight to the views of tiny minorities. Unfortunately, rawfoodexplained.com is not a reliable source for scientific opinions. Their unsourced reprint (a copyright violation?) of Shelton's article is problematic in several regards. Shelton's repeated legal problems certainly do not establish him as a reliable source for scientific claims. His reports on "Professor Richet"'s (presumably Charles Richet) findings are his interpretations of those findings, not Richet's. Outside of non-reliable pro-fruitarian sites, I can find no sources connecting Richet with fruitarianism. As Richet said nothing about fruitarianism, we certainly cannot add him here. Shelton's interpretation of Richet's work is immaterial. The unreliable website's copyright violation of Shelton's interpretation of Richet's study is nonsense on stilts. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Is (an unsourced sentence of a) BBC-news (reporter) a reliable source for scientific opinions? In the article about the Armenian child, (that indeed may have missed the subtropical sun too much in temperate England, whereas for the same reason the mother's breastmilk may have been deficient), the sentence "They add that even adults need to be careful not to stick to a fruit-only diet for too long" is not sourced later on (nor before). Newspapers and broadcating organistations more than once have been ordered by judges to rectify (parts of) their statements, because of their incorrectness. VKing (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The BBC is a reliable source for reporting what someone else said. Newspaper articles typically use the inverted pyramid in organizing an article. The article says "Nutritionists say...They add..." OK, so "They" = "Nutritionists". Who are these "nutritionists"? Well, it continues, "Catherine Collins, a spokeswoman for the British Dietetic Association, (BDA) ...BDF paediatric dietician Nicole Dos Santos said...". So, "nutritionists" = the British Dietetic Association and BDF paediatric dietician Nicole Dos Santos.

Assuming we ignore the fact that the source you were discussing is a copyright violation (which we cannot), we are still left with Shelton's (repeatedly charged and convicted for practicing medicine without a license) interpretation of "Professor Richet"'s work. As rawfoodsexplained.com is not a reliable source, we cannot simply accept that whatever they publish is in anyway meaningful. If we go to Shelton's original work (whatever it is), we would need to show that he is a reliable source, which is clearly contraindicated by his extensive legal history.

Incidentally, your interpretation that the baby's vitamin D deficiency was the only problem misses several facts. (If you believe there are other nutrients available in sunlight, there is no point having this discussion.) Yes, the baby would have needed vitamin D, but also, ""The main problem for a nine-month old child is that they need a very high calorie to weight intake" and the child "died of a chest infection, brought on by malnutrition in July 2000 weighing just eleven and a half pounds, six pounds less than she should have....she was found to be markedly thin, dehydrated and to have severe pneumonia - all of which could be linked to malnutrition." "Without that, she said babies of that age - and younger - would not have the fuel they need for muscle growth, organ growth and brain development. They would miss out on proteins, iron, calcium, essential fatty acids and raw fibre, which will all affect their development.", "babies would also need the fat and nutrients they would receive from breast or bottle milk, and it was important babies received one or the other. She said a fruit-only diet was unsuitable for a child. 'This is not a diet a child should be put on.'"The baby died from an inadequate diet: fruitarianism. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Who are these "nutritionists"? Well, it continues, "Catherine Collins, a spokeswoman for the British Dietetic Association, (BDA) ...BDF paediatric dietician Nicole Dos Santos said...". So, "nutritionists" = the British Dietetic Association and BDF paediatric dietician Nicole Dos Santos."

Did they really both add that "even adults need to be careful not to stick to a fruit-only diet for too long"? (Not one of them is cited virbally in this respect).

By the way, it may be seen as significent, that there is so much ado about one baby, that was fed in a fruitarian way, having died, while in the mean time hundreds of thousands, if not milions, of other babies, that were fed in the usual way, have died as well, (among other things as a result of starvation, in regions, where natural (fruit) food sources have been destroyed, in order to provide omnivore humans in 'whealthy' continents with plenty of (not too expensive) hamburgers and kindlike animal fastfood, as [[a result of which many of them die of the consequences of obesity on a relatively young age)? VKing (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to argue that the BBC is not a reliable source for what someone said, you will need to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard.

The baby in question died as the result of being fed a nutritionally inadequate diet. That diet was inadequate because it was a fruitarian diet. Your convoluted argument that various things that did not happen could have happened in various theoretical cases might have saved children by feeding them the same nutritionally inadequate diet is, of course, unsourced nonsense on stilts which hangs on the false dichotomy that one must either eat a B12-less, protein deficient fruitarian diet or eat nothing but McDonalds hamburgers. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Naturally a mother's breastmilk contains all (including B12-vitamins ?) a baby needs; after all it has no teeth yet, so it is not supposed to eat anything else.

In an exeptional case however it can happen that a mother's milk turns out not to contain, what it is supposed to contain.

This certainly is not allways the case, when the mother herself has a fruitarian feeding pattern; (otherwise all babies of fruitarian mothers would have died).

But in an as said exeptional case like this the big question is in how far the parents are thát principal, that they think they still haven't got the right to take the milk a cow needs for hér baby, so that they can give it as a suppletion to their human child.

It's their full right, to see it as God's wish in case the baby doesn't stay alive, no matter it is given the natural food, it is supposed to be given in the system of Creation.

This situation can be compared with the one of parents, that for religious reasons refuse to have their babies inoculated. If one of more of their children die(s) of a children's desease, this is accepted fully as God's wish.

In certain (semi-) scientifical circles it is accepted as a way not to frustrate Nature's correcting and selecting instruments.

Also in these circels the fact that every day numberless more grown-up persons die of deseases like cancer, heart failure, diabetes, etcetera, is concidered a logical and understandable punishment for their very nature-hostile non-fructarian (full of B12) 'McDonald's kind of feeding pattern'.VKing (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Your POV here is both faulty and moot. If you have anything to add that cites reliable sources about this unnatural fringe diet, feel free to do so. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

"Assuming we ignore the fact that the source you were discussing is a copyright violation (which we cannot), we are still left with Shelton's (repeatedly charged and convicted for practicing medicine without a license) interpretation of "Professor Richet"'s work. As rawfoodsexplained.com is not a reliable source, we cannot simply accept that whatever they publish is in anyway meaningful. If we go to Shelton's original work (whatever it is), we would need to show that he is a reliable source, which is clearly contraindicated by his extensive legal history."

Whether or not the relevant site contains text, that shouldn't be there like that because of copyright rules, (which is not decided in court, so not prooved, so not to be concidered an argument in this discussion), the fact remains, that one scientist has written it, whereas another scientist has commented it on his website, as a result of which there's little or nothing that can give reason (enough) not to accept this last mentioned site as a reliable source in the context of this article. The fact that the last mentioned scientist has committed some legal sins, cannot be seen as that relevant, that his site must be treaten as an unreliable source. For that fact doesn't say anything (or very much) about his qualities as a scientist and so his reliability in that field. When for instance a moviestar is condemned several times for tax-fraude, that doesn't say anything about his or her qualities as an actor and certainly doesn't make him or her a bad actor. VKing (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Side point: Wikipedia does NOT link to copyright violations. A website that reproduces Shelton's copyrighted text without a credible claim of holding the rights to the work is assumed to be a copyright violation. More to the point, a website that is not a reliable source (such as rawfoodexplained.com) reproducing another text (whatever that text may be) is not a usable source. Verify the text in the original text and cite the original text.

An actor convicted of tax evasion is still a good or bad actor based on their acting. A "doctor" repeatedly convicted of practicing medicine without a license, on the other hand, is not a doctor. Not all "scientists" are reliable sources. Nor are all sources who are reliable in one field necessarily reliable in another. (For instance, Linus Pauling, who won the Nobel Prize twice (for chemistry and peace), is not a reliable source for extraordinary claims about vitamin c.)

Shelton beliefs clearly do not "accurately reflect current medical knowledge". WP:MEDRS His interpretations of work done by "Professor Richet" do not bear extra weight because Charles Richet might have had something relevant to say (if this is the same Richet as Charles, who won the Nobel for Physiology or Medicine). If Charles Richet directly said something that is explicitly about fruitarianism, you might have something. Instead, we have some website quoting a book by a fraudulent doctor claiming that a Nobel laureate's work somehow proves something about a dangerous fringe diet. This is not mere nonsense, this is nonsense on stilts. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Knowing (both from own experience and from the many cases that are mentioned in relevant lecture) that turning to a raw-food and/or a fruitarian (or fructarian) diet can lead to results, that to the regular medical world are "ïmpossible" and so 'miracles', it's very likely that the mentioned "fraudulent doctor" has (illegally) healed several or maybe many patients, that turned to him, because regular (legally operating) doctors simply couldn't heal them one way or another. In that case, there's a very big justification of the formally illegal actions of Mr. Shelton.

By the way, in the Fruitarianism article finds itself this sentence:

According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health "natural food sources of vitamin B12 are limited to foods that come from animals."[28]

Did you know, that human breastmilk contains a conciderable quantity of B12-vitamins? VKing (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your belief that fruitarian diets work magic are not found in reliable sources and do not belong in this article. Yes, so long as the woman in question has a reliable source of B12 in her diet, her milk will contain B12. Humans, you see, are animals. Human breast milk comes from humans/animals. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not very likely, that the U.S. National Institutes of Health uses the word "animals" in that sence. Nor is it very likely that vegans and fruitarians don't give their children breast feeding, because they don't want them to use that animal product. Further more with that use of the word "animal" the first senctence of this article ("Fruitarianism involves the practice of following a diet that includes fruits, nuts and seeds, without animal products, vegetables and grains"), would have to be changed, as fruitarians do give their children human (=animal) milk. VKing (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your argument, therefore, is that NIH cannot mean that humans (Kingdom: Animalia) are animals and therefore must be wrong about B12. Further, fruitarians must believe that human breast milk is a fruit, nut or seed... or something. Whatever. Reliable sources state, unequivocally, that natural food sources of vitamin B12 are limited to foods that come from animals. Yes, fruitarians/vegans likely nurse. B12 deficiency can take years to manifest. A woman who became a fruitarian 2 years ago is likely not B12 deficient. A woman who is B12 deficient is likely to be unable to conceive. This is all off-topic, though.

What, if anything, are you suggesting be done to improve the article (keeping in mind that such improvements must be backed by reliable sources)? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again then: if also in the context of a Wp article like this one human milk is to be seen as animal milk, then the first sentence of this article has to be changed, because it says that fruitarians don't use any animal products. This namely would mean that fruitarian fed children would'nt be breastfed. According to reliable sources as well this definitely is not the case. VKing (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source discussing this? Right now, you are combining the content of two sources to make a point not discussed by either one. As it stands, we have reliable sources stating that B12 comes only from foods from animals and that people have died from this fringe diet. Unless you wish to demonstrate the sources are not reliable, that material stays. If you wish to add anything, you need reliable sources for it. If you simply want to dance around on the talk page, there is nothing further to discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there already is a Wp rule according to which those who are discussing a subject on a discussing page are not allowed to react on a statement of one discussor by saying things that not at all concern the mentioned statement.

But the fact that somebody just did, together with other reasons in the same direction, to this user for now is reason enough to stop discussing with the mentioned "somebody" and instead use his time more sensefull by among other things translating the following site into English: [5]. VKing (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to translate the page, go right ahead. However, don't expect it to be of any help here. I see no indication that Nic. Pleumekers or the "Conservation Foundation" (de Stichting Natuurbescherming) are reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

At least they're not operating anonimously here, no matter that (legal) rules demand that the (last five) authors of open projects like this one are known by their real name.VKing (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but it does not seem to be related to improving this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There are also legal rules that say, that the publisher of a work (in this case the Wp foundation), when asked by a prosecutor, is obliged to mention the name(s) of the autor(s) of the published work. The Wp foundation will however not be able to do this, when it doesn't know itself who its authors are, because it allows them to wright (parts of) articles of this encyclopedia anonimously, or known with just a username, which is not the real name. It may be not "related to improving this article", to point on that omission that can cause serious problems for Wp, but it certainly is related to improving Wp's legal position; (for instance when some of its anonimously (some may say cowardly) operating authors have offenced other (not anonimously operating) users, by making rude remarks about their contributions.

And what's more: how can users judge what sources are reliable, when they themselves are so unreliable, that they constantly break the rules concerning making their real name known? VKing (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Those "legal rules" don't seem to have anything to do with improving this article. I would suggest you take your concerns to either the Wikimedia Foundation or an appropriate policy page on Wikipedia. (Depending on what your concern is, it may be helpful to know that Wikipedia is organized in the United States, so U.S. law typically applies.)

We judge sources as "reliable" using standards we have developed. The general guideline can be found at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. As this article's topic concerns, in part, biomedical information, a further refinement of those guidelines often applies. That guideline is available at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).

Finally, if you feel another editor (whether me or anyone else) has dealt improperly with you or anyone else, your first stop should probably be on that user's talk page. Try to work out the issue in a civil manner. Failing that, other dispute resolution options are explained at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wp may be organised in one country, but it is publishing in many countries. In every coutry it does, the laws of that country about publishing matters are applicable.

But it would be astonishing, if in the US not as well the real name of authors has to be known to the publisher of their work. For this would mean that authors couldn't be prosecuted, in case they have written something the law forbids to be written; (for instance something (too) pornographic, or so). VKing (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not your opinion of what country's laws apply or what you believe U.S. laws might exist. If you have concerns other than this article, they do not belong here. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm. VKing (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this one way or another might help improving the article: [6]. VKing (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If this were (1) a significant medical authority (2) speaking in hir field of expertise (3) receiving substantial coverage for hir opinion (4) in a reliable source (5) discussing fruitarianism, you might have something.

Instead, we have (1) a single researcher (2) speaking outside of his area (published on a cardiac procedure, discussing diet) (3) in one article (4) on a website of no demonstrated prominence (5) not discussing fruitarianism, the subject of this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if there is B12 in shit. However, there are problems with that:

• Shit is not food.
• Shit is not fruit (it's an animal product, you can look it up).
• Shit is full of pathogens that can fucking kill you.
• We don't have reliable sources saying, "Hey, you don't have to worry about not getting B12, just eat some shit!"
• Oh, yeah, and the reliable sources (the U.S. National Institutes of Health) do say, "natural food sources of vitamin B12 are limited to foods that come from animals."[28] - SummerPhD (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A few days ago the author of the B12 liturature study as mentioned above, answered positively on the question whether there's B12 in human urine: "0,04 microgram per ml, whereas one daily needs 2 microgram, which is in 50 ml urine." (50 ml is about a thimble full).

Urine officially is food, as it is used as such by (among others?) astronauts; there certainly are reliable sources that are stating this.

As far as one doesn't eat any animal food, ones urine cannot be animal either; it's plain (digested) plant food, and can be re-used in stead of, or together with water or another kind of liquor. Fruitarians can get their daily portion of B12, without using any animal food or pharmaceutics.

The question in how far human urine is to be concidered as natural food, indeed is a question. But urine of insects, finding itself in dried form upon fruits, undoubtedly is as natural as the fruits themselves. It definately is much less dangerous than for instance residues of insecticides. VKing (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You need reliable sources discussing this, specifically referring to fruitarianism. Urine is a bodily waste from animals, not a food (much less a fruit). Astronauts do not drink urine (and they eat a hell of a lot of meat). If urine from a vegetarian is vegetarian, so is milk (from cows). Oh, and did I mention that "natural food sources of vitamin B12 are limited to foods that come from animals"? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it turns out to be recycled urine, they drink. [7]. No idea whether the also chemical treatement in the recycling process leaves the B12 intact.

Cow milk may be vegetarian, but it's not fruitarian. It is meant and made for cow babies, like human milk is meant and made for human babies. Cow milk is not meant and made for human babies (who have just one stomach, while cow babies have four to digest their special foodstuff). But grown up humans (directly or indirectly) drinking cow milk that is meant and made for cow babies? If that's not ridiculous, then what is? VKing (talk) 02:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, not "recycled urine", "recycled water".

...and apples are "meant" to grow into apple trees. The reason "cow babies" have four stomachs has nothing to do with milk or fruitarianism, the article you are supposed to be discussing improving on this talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't the second sentence of the linked article say:"Space shuttle Endeavour is carrying two refrigerator-sized racks packed with a distiller and an assortment of filters designed to process astronauts’ urine and sweat into clean drinking water."?

Who was it again, that only a week ago started talking about cow-milk on this page with the sentence: "If urine from a vegetarian is vegetarian, so is milk (from cows). ?

If all apples were meant to grow into apple trees, all of the planet would be full of apple trees by now. But cow babies are meant to grow into cows; the male ones as well as the female. VKing (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This is entirely off topic. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles. This article is about fruitarianism, not whether water is urine or what apple seeds are "for". - SummerPhD (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence

At the moment the opening sentence is not in line with (reality and) what is said under "Definitions"; grains and certain kinds of vegetables namely in many, if not most cases also are eaten.

Therefor hereby the proposition to change that sentence in:

"Fruitarianism involves the practice of following a diet that includes fruits and all or some kinds of other plant products, such as nuts, seeds, grains, kernels and fruit vegetables, but without animal products." VKing (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what a "fruit vegetable" is. I am clear on varying definitions of "fruit": culinary (basically, those in the photo at the top of the article (minus the nuts)), botanical (adds nuts, seeds and various culinary vegetables that are technically fruits (tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, etc.)). The article's current version conforms with the reliable source cited. Your version is unclear and fails to exclude various vegetables (leaves, roots, sprouts, stems, flowers, etc.) that the cited sources exclude. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It conforms with that source yes, but not with the facts in practice, nor with what is posed further on in the article (under "Definitions").

So it's better to forget about the first mentioned source and adapt the opening sentence to the facts, as they are also mentioned in the cited reliable sources under "Definitions".

"Fruit vegetables" is an (indeed new) term, we try to make usual as a clear and efficient one for "various culinary vegetables that are technically fruits (tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, etc.))".

But as it isn't usual yet, the relevant plant products indeed will have to be described elsehow in the opening sentence;

which on second thought might go like this.:

"Fruitarianism involves the practice of following a diet without animal products and without plants, that includes fruits and other edible plant products such as nuts, seeds, grains, and vegetables that are not plants or parts of plants." VKing (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition to still needing to follow what reliable sources say (which this doesn't), there is the problem that fruits, nuts, seeds, grains and all vegetables are, by definition, plants or parts of plants. See:

• fruit "a part of a flowering plant"
• nut (fruit) "a hard-shelled indehiscent fruit of some plants" (see fruit, above)
• seed "a small embryonic plant"
• food grain "small, hard, dry seeds" (see seed, above)
• vegetable "an edible plant or part of a plant" - SummerPhD (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

When different reliable sources say different things about the same subject, one has to be chosen: the one that says what is most realistic.

"Fruitarianism involves the practice of following a diet without animal products and without vital parts of plants, that includes fruits and other edible plant products such as nuts, seeds, grains, and vegetables that are not plants or vital parts of plants."

And eh: Fruits not very often are eaten when they still are 'part of ' a plant. VKing (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You have not presented a reliable source saying what you claim fruitarianism is. Again, by definition fruits, nuts, seeds, grains and vegetables are parts of plants. The definition we have is clear, internally consistent and cites a reliable source. Your opinion cannot be used in place of that source. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

According to that definition fruitarians don't eat any vegetables nor grains. This would mean they don't eat no tomatoes, no cucumbers, no paprika's and no bakery products like bread. Do you really think there's more than one on hundred fruitarians, for whom especcially the first three mentioned fruits are not most essential parts of the diet? Fruitarians eat tomatoes, no matter they're catagorised as vegetables or as whatever. And there ARE reliable sources that state this (mentioned under Definitions). This should be found back in the definition, otherwise it is incomplete, no matter it is cited in a reliable source. Wp's intention in the first place is offering as complete as possible information and not blindly reproducing what generally spoken reliable sourses say, no matter that in a certain case even a child knows it is not reliable.

By the way, fruits, nuts, seeds and fruity vegetables (otherwise than leafy vegetables) are not parts of a plant any more, in their edible phase. And a seed is not "a small embryonic plant"; only when it started sprouting it is; before it's as little an embryo as a human seed in itself is.

Just to make clear, that there are still made very big mistakes in also scientifical sources in this field, no matter they are regarded as reliable. Personally I wouldn't dare to nevertheless blindly follow such an evident scientifical imperfection by reproducing c.q. maintaining it in a Wp article. O no ! VKing (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We report what reliable sources say is true, not what you believe is true. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Everybody (except evidently the editors of the cited 'reliable' source) knows that grains are seeds. VKing (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

See? I'd have thought that everyone would've known that fruits, nuts, seeds, grains and vegetables are parts of plants. That's why we stick with what reliable sources say. If you have any reliable sources, you might have something to add to this article. Otherwise, you're wasting my time. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If reliable sources are demanded, in case a contributor points out that an apple, that has fallen from a tree is not part of that tree (any more), than he must conclude that his effort to help making this article some more sensible, in the nowadays situation is largely a matter of wasting his time.

So for now he stops his effort and will see what he possibly can do later on. VKing (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to bring any reliable sources back to the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Honey is not a fruit

Honey isn't a fruit. Don't you think this is worth pointing out? Isn't including it among things that are fruit or are fruit derived products (dried fruit, olive oil) kind of misleading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.169.251 (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've clarified. The sources said that some fruitarians consume honey, olive oil, chocolate, etc. They may or may not consider them "fruit". - SummerPhD (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely a true fruitarian would not consume honey, just how a true vegan would not consume honey? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

An apparently reliable source (Food, nutrition, and diet therapy: a textbook of nutritional care, Marie V. Krause, Saunders, 1984) says, "The fruitarian diet consists of only raw or dried fruits, nuts, honey and olive oil." Other sources give other lists. The "take home" message -- that various fruitarians define the diet in idiosyncratic ways -- seems to be reflected in the paragraph. You might want to hammer home that honey is not a "fruit" in most senses of the word. Others might want to hammer home that the diet is nutritionally insufficient. Or that the diet gives you super powers. Or that the diet means needing to stay within sprinting distance of a toilet at all times. Or... whatever. This is not a web forum. This is Wikipedia. We report what reliable sources say about the subject. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Religious Section

I think this article should be amended to define Adam and Eve, Genesis and terms like "original diet" as part of a mythology or work of fiction rather than putting it in a form that makes it seem to be fact. "Some fruitarians believe fruitarianism was the original diet of mankind in the form of Adam and Eve based on Genesis 1:29.[15] They believe that a return to an Eden-like paradise will require simple living and a holistic approach to health and diet.[18] " - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.244.183 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 1 July 2012‎

The current text makes clearly factual statements about what some fruitarians believe. It does not say the story of Adam and Eve is literally true, completely false or anything in between. It speaks, as it should, only to what some fruitarians believe. To discuss this area any further in this article, we would need reliable sources discussing the veracity of the Adam and Eve story (and related details) in the context of fruitarianism. We are unlikely to find such coverage, IMO. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Berries

"However, there are other foods that are not typically considered to be fruits in a culinary sense but are botanically, such as berries, bell peppers, eggplant, tomatoes, cucumbers, nuts and grains"

According to the berries article tomatoes áre berries. - VKing (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Besides, several kinds of berries áre sweet, so that they are considered to be "fruits in a culinary sense"; such as droves and strawberries. - VKing (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

For the point you are trying to make, strawberries are a bad choice. They aren't berries.

Anyone who knows that tomatoes are berries hardly needs to be schooled that they are fruits. (I haven't a clue what "droves" are.) In any case, it's probably worth yanking that one little word.

As far as I can tell, there aren't many people classifying something they consider to be a berry as being a vegetable. To me, the common use of "berries" would include blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, cranberries and such. (On that list, blackberries and strawberries are not berries.) Berries that people mostly consider fruits but don't consider berries (grapes, watermelon, bananas, etc.) are a moot point. Berries that are in a culinary sense vegetables -- tomatoes, avocados, pumpkins and such -- are the issue here. Including them through the botanical usage of "berries" is not helpful.

The current phrasing, "However, there are other foods that are not typically considered to be fruits in a culinary sense but are botanically, such as berries, bell peppers, eggplant, tomatoes, cucumbers, nuts and grains." works equally well without the "berries". The sense is not lost: The botanical term "fruit" includes things excluded from the culinary term "fruit".

I'm yanking the word. Anyone opposed is welcome to restore it and address the issue here. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

After a bit more digging in that section ("Fruitarian definitions of fruit"), the whole thing is problematic. The first part is poorly sourced: It gives a sourced definition of fruit, but the source is not appropriate for this article as it does not discuss the material presented: that fruitarians use the definition. (This is discussed with appropriate cites in the following section, so it is no great loss). The second half, supposedly discussing what fruitarians consider to be "fruit" cites only what Shelton (who we haven't been able to source as ever being a fruitarian) considered to be "fruit". I'm yanking that section as original research. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If just the whole article isn't yanked.

A "drove" is a (too easy) translation of the word "druif", which (ah yes) in English is "grape". We've had that years ago with "Pinda's"; the American fruitarian just didn't know what that were; could it maybe be related to Pindo (tree)? But pinda's in English (ah yes) are "peanuts".

By the way, we're (now and then) working on this: [8]

VKing (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)