Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Is it common?

Is this at all common? I know there are plenty of vegans out there, but I've never met anyone who maintains a fructarian diet. Is it even possible to maintain a healthy diet with such restrictions? --Robert Merkel

Apparently SF author H. G. Wells was aware of such a diet; otherwise, in his novel The Time Machine, he wouldn't have given the Eloi such a diet. -- Damian Yerrick 29 March 2002 22:50 (UTC)

Jain minks do -- FWBOarticle 31 July 2004 11:48 (UTC)

Did Wells give the Eloi such a diet? The Morlocks deprived them of animal products, but that doesn't mean they couldn't eat root vegetables, for example. IOW, they were forced to be vegetarians, not fruitarians. Jeff Worthington 17:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

That's what it says in the book. They were fructarians. They were too feeble, brainless and pathetic to do anything else. I probably worded it wrong. If so, sorry. --Celestianpower ^talk 18:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

In the U.S., studies put self-described vegans at no more 0.2% of the population. Since, fruitarians are, by definition, a sub-set of vegans, the fruitarian population has to be smaller than that. Given that you "know there are plenty of vegans" but don't know any fruitarians, it seems their numbers are vanishingly small. Also, that there are no wide-spread studies that even give it as an option gives an indication that it is pretty rare. Finally, while the mainstream press rarely defines "vegetarian" and almost always defines "vegan", vegetarian websites usually don't define either but invariably do define "fruitarian". Fruitarians are similar in that way to, say, a lawyer whose specialty is so rare that most lawyers have never heard of it.

Mdbrownmsw 18:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Benefit to plant"?

In many cases, eating fruit does the parent plant a favor. All fleshy fruit is designed to be eaten by animals and either travel through the animal's digestive tract before it sprouts in a pile of ready-made fertilizer; or, in the case of fruits with cores or pits, to be carried away from the parent plant, eaten, and the core or pit which contains the seeds or is the seed, tossed aside to sprout. Obviously this does not include the cases of "nuts, ... beans, peas, [and] grains", in which the seed is pulverized by teeth or pre-ground by machine to a powder. How dare humans enslave plants and then take away their reproductive capacacity! Ahem. Just an observation. -- Brion VIBBER 28 March 2002 23:02 (UTC)

Eating fruit only does the parent plant a favor if the human poops the fruit outside of a toilet. Certainly seeds will be destroyed in water-treatment plants. Additionally, by eating seedless fruits you certainly are not doing the parent plant a favor. -- Simfish 27 August 2004 21:55 (UTC)

NPOV alarm

For one, I'm not a fructarian - "only" a near lacto-vegetarian - but some of this text is outrageous and seems to be written by someone with strong prejudice against fructarianism, or even vegetarianism in general. Let's put this straight. (Note that, when I'm talking about nuts, I'm not including peanuts, which are in fact legumes.)

Vitamin B12 in the long term, may be a problem. That's the one point that I agree with. I don't know any plants that contain substantial amounts of B12. Nowadays, people just use supplements.

The high sugar content of their diet can cause diabetic or hypoglycemic-type symptoms,

First of all, tomatoes, squash, legumes, seeds, peppers and grains, among others, aren't known for their high sugar content. So this is nonsense. Second, there is no substantiated evidence that a high sugar diet causes diabetes. This is a myth. Even if it weren't, a typical fruitarian diet does not contain more sugar calorie for calorie than a Big Mac and a pint of coke.

while it is lacking in protein,

Lentils are allowed in a fruitarian diet, and (by dry mass) they're 30% protein. Go figure. They contain more protein calorie for calorie than just about any but the leanest poultry (they'd even have more if it wasn't for a fair amount of starch). Other legumes are also quite rich in protein (though not at a whopping 30%). When combined with about the same amount of cereals, which are also allowed for fructarians, the bioavailability ("completeness") of the protein may exceed 95% - it's then even higher than in beef (which has ca. 91% bioavailability). Nuts are also rich in protein, and so are mushrooms. There may be idiots who eat nothing but fruit salad, but any sane fructarian will have no trouble at all satisfying his/her protein requirements.

minerals,

Stop. This is getting ever better. Which kind of minerals are you talking about? E.g.

• iron (it's often claimed that vegetarian diets wouldn't contain enough): found in legumes (best digested with vitamin C, but vitamin C is abundant in various fruits, e.g. lemons and bell peppers)
• magnesium: peanuts, e.g., contain lots of it
• potassium: legumes, bananas, apples, etc. contain lots of it
• zinc: beans, nuts and sunflower seeds, for example, are rich in zinc
• calcium: Nuts. That simple.

etc.

So which kind of minerals are you talking about? I'm not saying there are none, but please be more specific.

and fat-soluble vitamins.

Let's see. You can't be speaking about vitamin A, because there are lots of beta-carotin in tomatoes, bell peppers, mangos, melons and apricots - among others. Maybe vitamin D? The body can produce vitamin D in the skin, given sufficient exposure to UV light (e.g. sunlight). This may be a problem for dark-skinned people living in colder climes, but it isn't a problem for white people who're outside in the daytime for at least 2 hours a week (and not too covered). Vitamin E, maybe? Almonds, wheat germs and other seeds contain high amounts of vitamin E. Vitamin K? This is a little more difficult since the best sources are root vegetables, but soybeans (and thus tofu), alfalfa seeds and oats contain enough of it to keep the fructarian happy. As usual with vegetable sources, the food, unless naturally rich in oils (like nuts and peanuts), should be prepared with oil in order to make the fat-soluble vitamins optimally digestible.

Long-term fructarians are prone to food cravings and consequent binge-eating,

I don't see major nutrient deficiencies that necessarily arise from fructarianism. I don't even see "missing tastes" in terms of basic tastes. I mean salty, sour, bitter and sweet are easily obtained in a fructarian diet, along with a little salt. And tomatoes and mushrooms are umami. E.g., I eat next to no meat for quite a while, and I have no meat cravings whatsoever. I don't think there are physiological causes for food cravings in a fructarian following a well-rounded diet. There may be psychological reasons, but this isn't unusual for any restricted (from an omnivore point of view) diet.

Of course I am speaking of people who know what they're doing (this is always a good idea wrt nutrition). The more restricted a diet is, the more difficult it is to get the right balance of essential nutrients. One of the biggest and most frequent mistakes on the road to vegetarianism is just quitting on meat, like you'd quit on cigarettes. If you still consume dairy products, this may work, but in case you're becoming a "true" vegetarian, or even a fructarian, you're asking for trouble. You need to know something about vital nutrients, you need to care about diversity, and (not to be underestimated) you need to f... know how to make a diet of vegetables, fruit, nuts, legumes and cereals taste great. A major problem in traditional omnivore cuisine is that people know 1000 ways to spice meat and make delicious meat sauces, but e.g. think all it takes to make a salad is vinegar and some corn oil. There are so many delicious, well-spiced vegetarian dishes from chilis over lentil and mushroom burgers to currys, but the popular image of vegetarians is often that of someone who has to force himself to gulp down his ration of steamed carrots and peas. I think it's out of this popular image that much of the prejudice I've mentioned here has arisen. Wikipedia needs to and can do better than this, I'm certain.

Thanks for your attention. -- Aragorn2 21:58, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You should add all that info in, I had next to no idea that you could live healthily off fruit. Interesting...Cameron Nedland 03:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Some Thoughts

I read this article a couple months ago when I was looking into frutarianism, and was alarmed by the downsides of frutarianism, which I had not heard of elsewhere. Something about it, however, didn't sit right with me, such as the claims about the diet not providing enough vitamins and minerals. Most problematic was the claim that frutarianism causes diabetes. I reread the article again today (I don't believe it has changed since the first time I read it) after some of my recent Web "research" suggested the opposite--that the sugar in a typical frutarian diet is "healthy" and not the kind of stuff we find in the candy and other low-value foods which (supposedly?) causes diabetes.

When I was about to post a comment to this discussion section, I was pleased to find the comment entitled "NPOV Alarm", which appears to knock out many of the negative claims about frutarianism. My request (or my hope) is that someone more familiar with this topic can update the article to provide some references that either confirm the claims of the article (e.g. diabetes) or incorporate the comments from "NPOV Alarm" and to back those up with some evidence as well. -- 68.0.211.71 16 December 2004 07:01 (UTC)

Ovo-lacto fructarians?

Is there such a thing as an ovo-lacto fructarian? I mean you may get eggs or milk without harming a hen or a cow. It's logical, isn't it?-- Toytoy 18:02, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

What are Jains, for that matter? Fructarians or ovo-lacto-fructarians? Neither this article nor that one seems to know of the other's existence at the moment. -- Smjg 17:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I am ovo-lacto fructarian, but I didn't find anyone who practice this :) I am not sure that there are enough ethical reasons to become strict fructarian. --Millosh 04:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I've never even heard of someone claiming to be an ovo-lacto fruitarian. The word is a bit of an oxymoron, as is vegetarian. Someone claiming to be a fruitarian implies they only eat the botanical definition of fruit or something even more restrictive. The same is true of the term vegetarian, for that implies one only eats vegetables, which is not the case. The only term that makes any resemblance of sense is vegan, which means to not consume any animals or animal products. But all of these terms are synonomous with omnivore if you ask me, because none of these groups aside from fruitarians practice the consumption of one food type. For instance, vegetarians eat vegetables, fruits, grains, junk food, and in other cases, milk, cheese, eggs, chicken, fish. And a vegan eats from many food groups. The only distinction these people should make in everyday conversation is that they don't eat meat. Otherwise, the term vegetarian seems absurd to use in these person's cases. An example of a true vegetarian, perhaps a cow, who eats grasses predominately.

Spoiled vegetarians

If you're rich and you're living in a rich society, you may eat a healthy diet with nearly whatever restrictions so long as you are allowed to cherry pick your food and take any required supplements.

I guess I can eat just apples and live very well. If I have the money, I can probably separate the minute amounts of protein from the sugar-rich apple. If the protein lacks some sort of essential amino acid, I'll take some algae- or bacteria-based supplements. I'll also take linseed oil pills and maybe some multivitamins and fiber pills.

As long as you have money, you can do anything you want.

Vegetarianism, in my opinion, is for spoiled kids. When you eat vegetables, you discard lots of tissues. Hua=man cannot digest fiber. Therefore, many plants' roots, stems and leaves must be abandoned. We are not cows. We are closer to tigers. If I have the money, I can probably feed a great white shark using only plant-derived fats and proteins. I only need to throw away fibres and sugars.

I know some of you may say you're eating a whole cabbage. So what? Cabbages are grown in a highly fertilized field. To get your cabbage, it takes over 100 years of cultivation. Otherwise, you get weeds. These vegetables are on the top of the food chain. They consume nitrogen supplied from fertilizers. And it takes lots of efforts to keep bugs away from your cabbage. These are not normal wild plants.

Anyway, eating fruits only is not for the rest of us. -- Toytoy 18:29, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the country with by far the most vegetarians of any in the world, making up about 25% of the country's population, is India. I'd hardly say the majority of people living in that country are "spoiled". Ralphael 17:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

removed see also links

I removed a link to christian anarchism because there was no mention of fruitarianism on that page. I also removed the pseudoscience link. It doesn't seem to fit here, as this appears to be more a moral issue than trying to find the best diet. (Sorry, I accidentally marked it a minor edit.) --Dforest 01:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

effects on health

i would like to see somethng more on health benefits and healh problems related to this type of diet

Yes, I agree. We need at least some potential health risks in the criticism section. Because currently, there are no negative health effects listed. Surely with a diet such as this, there could be adverse effects. SkinnyZan 23:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Utter Nonsense

My favorite part is about not eating grains because the harvest kills the plant. Grains (oats, wheat, barley and the like) are typically annuals that die after setting seed.

How about the evil doers who eat seeds? There's an embryonic plant in every seed. When does plant life begin? When does the embryonic plant develop its immortal soul? At fertilization or germination? Popping a walnut or almond in your mouth is clearly murder. Cooking lentils is planticide on a massive scale. Surely there is a special level of fruitarian hell for those who stray from the path of righteousness and eat these living creatures. 67.123.129.84

To the guy who wrote, "spoiled vegetarians"- No, it's not that simple. Taking to many pills isn't good, it can lead to weight loss, anorexia, and liver problems. Also most vitamin pills don't suppy the RDA (recomended daily allowence) of the amount of minerals and vitamins needed. Also fiber is needed to clean out your intestinal tract (ie: goin' poopy on the pot) and I'm sure your intestins appreciate it.

Utter Nonsence- Are you the guy who wrote the vegetable liberation front? lol

NOPOV alarm- Yes, that is mainly what my diet consists of. Though I haven't really researched legume and nut farming, I'm pretty sure the plant can be cut by the stem and still grow back. (like your lawn) And the only people I've heard of that are fruitarians that only eat fruit salad are extremists, idiots, and wanna-be breatharians.

And lacto-ovo-fruitarians I think are maybe called semi fruitarians.

Fruitarian

To the guy who wrote, "spoiled vegetarians"- No, it's not that simple. Taking to many pills isn't good, it can lead to weight loss, anorexia, and liver problems. Also most vitamin pills don't suppy the RDA (recomended daily allowence) of the amount of minerals and vitamins needed. Also fiber is needed to clean out your intestinal tract (ie: goin' poopy on the pot) and I'm sure your intestins appreciate it.

Utter Nonsence- Are you the guy who wrote the vegetable liberation front? lol

NOPOV alarm- Yes, that is mainly what my diet consists of. Though I haven't really researched legume and nut farming, I'm pretty sure the plant can be cut by the stem and still grow back. (like your lawn) And the only people I've heard of that are fruitarians that only eat fruit salad are extremists, idiots, and wanna-be breatharians.

And lacto-ovo-fruitarians I think are maybe called semi fruitarians.

Oh, and you don't get diabetes from being on a fruitarian diet. The natural sugar in fruit is called glucose, and it's even healthier than raw cane sugar.

Rename "Friggin Morons Who Eat Fruit Because They're Weak and Stupid"

I really wonder just how much the reputation of wikipedia is improved by cataloging all the most esoteric and stupid human ideas and treating them like they're serious propositions worthy of academic record. These people are fruitcakes who haven't got anything more interesting to offer than an eating disorder. Now, I'm sure there's alot of diversity and multicultural left-wing crap to take into account around here, but even that shouldn't mean that we have to article every single nutty idea that has three followers living in a commune in Chipping Norton. All of these dumb ideas should be listed under a single article called "Crazy Crap that has no impact on the progress of mankind".--Corinthian 20:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• The millenia-old Jainist religion espouses fructarianism. It's hardly a new idea. --Ian Maxwell 15:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• wikipedia is descriptive not prescriptive. if you are looking to push a pov there are plenty of other places on the internet. --frymaster 16:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally think this is weird myself, but lets not insult people just cuz of diet choice.Cameron Nedland 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to cite medical risks

The fact that most governments have a variety of food groups, and not just 'fruit', is reference to evidence enough. Again, when proposing an unusual diet, you don't need to provide evidence that it's bad, evidence must be provided that it is sustainable. There's no need to provide information on the starvation or breatharianism articles, for example, due to obvious risks. Tyciol 06:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There may be some claims in the section that don't need sourcing, but there are many that do. A few examples:

• "on a long-term basis fruitarians often suffer health problems"
• "it may be true that Vitamin B12 cannot be found in any fruit matter"
• "it is lacking in ... minerals and fat soluble vitamins"
• "Long-term fruitarians may be prone to psychological food cravings and consequent binge-eating"
• "Fruitarians allegedly often develop strong cravings for dates ... and avocados"
• "Some fruitarians develop a type of eating disorder called orthorexia."

These claims should all be cited with a reliable source. --Ds13 08:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Peas and nuts

As others have pointed out you don't benefit a seedless plant if you eat its fruit. More importantly, you clearly don't benefit a plant when you digest/destroy it's seeds such as with many peas/lentils & nuts. Do any fruitarians make a distinction for this reason? Also, how many fruitarians eat proper fruit etc rather then the completely f-ked up fruit etc we have nowadays which would never survive in the wild in the long term were it not for the fact we are cultivating them. Nil Einne 13:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Which is the more enslaved, the plant that we've created, or us - who have to care for and protect the vast monocultures of the food-producing plant? --Corinthian 14:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

A problem is that there are many definitions of fruitarianism within the group. Or to put it more accurately, fruitarianism means something different to each one. Many fruitarians don't eat peas/beans and nuts/seeds. Reasons vary:

-Some do not appreciate how these foods make them feel. Because fruit is so easily digested, they find the nuts and seeds too hard on their digestive system which gives them less energy as the body refocuses more energy on digestion. -Some do not think we were meant to eat even these food types. They draw attention to enzyme-inhibators present in these foods that make them harder to digest. -Some only eat them if they are soaked, and even them selectively, as some do not take well to soaking. -Most agree lentils/legumes are out because of the inability to eat them without cooking, thus rendering them unnatural. Some fruitarian bodybuilders claim to need nuts and seeds for protein. Other fruitarian bodybuilders do very well without them after having tried it both ways.

Confusing Jewish claim

I have removed the following "sentence":

And to avoid eating plants (or animals) for a religous, or moral reason (as opposed to a health one) is a violation of Jewish Halacha.

This is clearly untrue and/or contradictory, since Jews do avoid eating certain plants and animals for religious reasons. e.g. Jews do not eat the fruits of trees for the first three years, per the law of Orlah. If someone can clarify this idea, go ahead and re-add it! --Ds13 15:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say 'certain' plants. I said 'plants'. It IS a violation of Jewish halacha to avoid eating plants because of a 'moral' or 'religious' reason (go ask an orthodox rabbi if you like, I tried but I could not find an online link). Obviously if god said don't eat so and so, then don't. But otherwise, to say I won't eat this plant or animal because I feel it's not moral is not allowed. And I will repeat, that to do so for a health reason, or just because you don't like the taste is fine.

I think the religious comment threw you off, I was not talking about 'jewish religious' reason, I meant their (fruitarians) own religion. From the point of view of jewish halacha that reason does not trump the broader halacha that it's forbidden. orlah does not count because you are not forbidding all apples (for example), but just these specific ones. Also combinations like milk and meat, are also different because again you are not forbidding the item itself, but just don't eat it right now. The only items forbidden at all times are specifically deliniated by the torah - and it's specifically, and only, non-kosher animals.

I will not add the sentence back it right away to give time for you, and others to comment. But how about changing it to this: And it's a violation of Jewish Halacha to avoid eating plants (or animals) for a moral reason, or for a religous reason like this one, which is not found in Jewish halacha. (This halacha does not apply to avoiding things for health, or taste reasons.)

71.199.123.24 03:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I understand this a bit better. Showing that a fruitarian diet choice is no different than a vegetarian or vegan (or low carb or whatever) diet choice from a Jewish perspective might put things into perspective also. So another way of expressing this might be... Jewish law (Halacha) permits fruitarianism (as with any diet restriction, including vegetarianism or veganism) only on the basis of health, not for moral or religious reasons. Or something. --Ds13 06:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"lack of protein"

"Lack of protein" in criticism section, starts by comparing fruit diets with animal product diets, while a normal vegan diet provides plenty of protein too. btw, lack of B12 can be a problem with vegan eating as well.

- The Recommended amount of protein for infants under 6 months of age I believe can safely be ignored, as I think it is undisputed infants consuming nothing more than mother's milk are the healthiest. So whomever cited that RDA recommendation needn't leave it there.

Need for Citations

Okay, I agree that some of these statements need sources, but who is the one putting some of these "citation needed" alarms on statements like:

"Killing is opposed to normal human behavior"?

I ask this person to walk up to his or her mother and kill her and see if the action can be performed without a second thought.

Mdbrownmsw 00:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Your absurd notion that all killing is equal to killing your own mother is patently absurd. I kill bacteria on a regular basis and it THRILLS me that they die. Mold and mildew in my shower? DIE, DIE, DIE!!! Intestinal parcites in my daughter? Kill 'em all. I will ask of the citation until the end of time.

on the issue of the {{fact}} tags: i realize that it is quick and easy to throw these down, but it is far more constructive to actually find and insert appropriate sources instead. -- frymaster 14:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mdbrownmsw 19:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Sure. But I'm looking at content that is basically unsupported. I am throwing on the {{fact}} tags because the authors have made "just so" statements of considerable weight with no cites. My only real alternative is to delete the content instead.

The problem with putting citations that support something that is not widely accepted is just that - it won't be widely accepted. I can post findings from ACTUAL studies conducted. But others will come up with other studies that disprove those ones. Thus my way of doing things, post what Fruitarians say themselves, what they believe. And leave it up to others to research studies into these matters and decide which they want to believe.

Touché on the killing comment. I suppose one should have been more specific in the statement.

Leonardo da Vinci

Fruitarians claim da Vinci based on a "decryption" of his notebooks where da Vinci reportedly only mentions eating fruit and pasta. (see Claiming da Vinci)

Two problems:

• Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: Nowhere in George Washington's records does he mention rubbing his eyes, but there's still a good chance he did...
• Pasta is not a fruit. If you want to eat any "product of a plant", we have a different name for that: vegan.

Neutrality

This page is so obviously anti-fruitarian that it seems as if it's sole purpose is to undermine anyone's consideration of it in a positive light.

Even if you disagree with something, you must have a balanced view expressed on wikipedia.

It would be fine if people added their objections, but the fact that they rewrite what is already there is going too far. --Mincan 03:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, rewriting "what is already there" is exactly what Wikipedia is all about. It's a peculiar charge, especially coming from someone who was "going to change (this) whole page to (their) liking!" [1] If you believe that anything on the page is less than factual, request sources or post alternate sources. If you believe facts are presented out of context, provide context. If you feel there is a side that is not being presented, present it -- realizing that someone else is going to attempt to balance your presentation if they feel it is one-sided.

I would suggest that the following is rellevant: "the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources." Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#A_vital_component:_good_research

Mdbrownmsw 04:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If what was written before hand was neutral (yes neutral is to my liking] and what replaces it is unbalanced, there's a problem there. Sure wikipedia is about replacing things, but not replacing things that are already neutral into something that is biased. I see more of the word "Detractor" in this page than I see the word fruitarian, that's a sure hint of an unbalanced page. And I can't understand all this criticism about someone wanting to change a page to their liking. Is this not what every single person who edits a page is doing? Just because I want to change a page to my liking doesn't mean I want a page on fruitarianism that tries to convert people. But someone coming here will now certainly be afraid of fruitarianism and anyone associated with it. This page to my liking would be a page that describes fruitarian beliefs as is. As I've said before, when it comes to something not yet established by science, we can both come up with sources that promote our respective claims.

--Mincan 20:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

sigh. to Mdbrownmsw:

1. it would be nice if we could refrain from using tu quoque when discussing edits. it lowers the level of discourse and does not assume good faith.
2. it is always preferable to look up a good source rather than just "request sources" by throwing fact tags around like confetti
3. remember that what you're sourcing is the statement, not necessarily the fact. for instance, we can say "bob believes the earth is flat" and provide a citation to bob's blog where he presents his non-globalist views. the fact that the earth is round does not mean that we cannot cite bob's statements.
4. balance is important. however this article has undergone many edits that have put detracting points of view in the 'motivation' section while the 'criticism' section has been left to stand. additionally, the fact-tag-mania seems to have been targeted explicitly at pro-fruitarian claims. for instance: the saliva acidity claim (the first bullet in motivations) is tagged. yet the 'excessive uring output' claim in 'criticisms' is not tagged. some might come to the conclusion that this imbalance is due to a bias of the editors... and that would be very sad for wikipedia indeed.

--frymaster 20:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs a rewrite

I really hate to be so critical, but this really bad. The motivation section is poorly written and looks like it could be rolled up into a pros and cons table. I'll give some changes a shot, but is anyone else thinking that this whole article needs an overhaul, or am I just being mean? Phauge 02:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to do just this. My idea is to return the page to it's prior state about a month ago. In that no claims will be made as to the validity of the diet, and only the strict definition and motivation of Fruitarians will be mentioned. I will leave critisms, but get rid of this argueing style of writing that fills them. Everyone should be in agreement to that, as no claims to neither justify nor condemn anything shall be present. --Mincan 22:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay I have rewritten the page to get rid of the neutrality marker and the weasel words marker. What I have done is: (1) Got rid of criticisms in the motivation section, where they do not belong, and simply state what fruitarians believe, not that it is correct. (2) Removed Fruitarian claims at validity from motivation and the ensueing debate like writing that is non-encyclopedic and does not belong there. (3) Removed Fruitarian counter-claims against criticisms, as most did not contain any proof and therefore do not stand. Also, to have statements that justify the diet right within criticisms is also debate like, non-encyclopedic, and does not belong in the section. In fact, no debate belongs in this article whatsoever. We will leave that to the realm of science, and let an encyclopedia article simply define the term, not justify it nor condemn it. That is a POV and belongs in private sites. I trust everyone will be happy with this rewrite as it is what has been asked for. Please discuss any further large scale changes here so that they can meet with group approval. --Mincan 23:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazing work. You should be quite proud. I hardly recognize the article from what it was before. Fantastic. Phauge 00:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much sir. Especially for that award! Greatly appreciated.--Mincan 03:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition of fruit to fruitarians

• A few minor readability edits.
• Fixed a sentance fragment.
• Clarified that SOME do not eat grains. Saying grains are not normally eaten conflicts with saying many eat seeds.

Mdbrownmsw 19:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that most do not eat grains, you have to make the distinction from a fruitarian standpoint, even if you consider grains a seed. Even fruitarians that eat seeds will not eat grains, therefore your point it incorrect. I can safely say next too 99% of fruitarians do not eat grains. Just check out a fruitarian website and/or forum for proof of this. I believe it should be changed back to reflect reality, not a perceived definition in your eyes of what is a seed (even if it is, this is a definition of fruitarian practices).

In a botanical sense, grains are seeds and SOME seeds are grains. The claification seems to be needed that some fruitarians eat seeds OTHER THAN GRAINS.

Mdbrownmsw 16:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed: "based the botanical definition of what constitutes a fruit (in addition to fruits (in the culinary sense), nuts, and seeds, this would also include pulses). " this sentence doesn't read very well. And stuck to the point of the sentence, that in addition to fruits, nuts, seeds, some would also include pulses holding to a botanical definition.

Changed: "Some include green leafy vegetables and beans." removed beans as it was already mentioned above that some include pulses with would include beans of course. Redundant. Mincan 11:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job changing the definition page, although basically it just says what it did before, although in your words now I guess :) Mincan 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

--

Vitamin B12 naturally exists in Beet Molasses, which is a popular standard precursor form of the highly nutritous food called Brewer's Yeast. I should know, I eat it every day. .15 mcg. of Cyanocobalamin, or Vitamin B12 per 2 tsp. serving.

"They cite the research of Jagdish Chandra Bose, knighted by Queen Victoria for his laboratory proof of plant sentience or consciousness"

i know he was knighted, and also he made the conclusion that plants can feel pain, but was he really knighted for this work? Blueaster 00:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"They cite the research of Jagdish Chandra Bose, knighted by Queen Victoria for his laboratory proof of plant sentience or consciousness"

i know he was knighted, and also he made the conclusion that plants can feel pain, but was he really knighted for this work? Blueaster 01:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fruitarianism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

It lacks history, simple as that. And with that, references -- Warfreak 09:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)