Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs

[panacea]

One thing the math has revealed though, is that adults would not be able to live on breast milk very well, there wouldn't be nearly enough protein even if you had several mothers for one adult.

It's interesting though that even in wild animals such as horses and so on, they can typically naturally produce roughly twice the milk that a single young would need, probably in case they had twins. This is where humans have been able to benefit, using that excess milk capability in case of (rare) twins and feeding themselves.

I didn't realize horses could produce 6 gallons of milk a day, I thought that was a cow-only thing. Kind of explains why we domesticated them and got the bright idea to ride them. It's interesting to see the parallels the Mongols had with the Maasai even though they probably never met. Mongol* soldiers would blood let their horses to feed themselves just like the Maasai with their bulls, without killing the horse. By doing this, essentially, the horse could eat the plants, and the humans could eat the horse blood - getting it in animal form.



This pic explains why cow's milk won the milk battle for adult humans, I suppose

[RRM]

There's no logical argument for a fruit-based diet.

Of course there is:
Consuming mostly fruits, and a little animal food, you will ingest all required nutrients,

[RRM]

... juicing and sieving the fruits. There's nothing wrong with this that we know about so far, other than the large amounts of sugar rapidly assimilated,

What is wrong with large amounts of sugar rapidly assimilated?
That is the function of insulin: to store it all as spare energy.
Wether the insulin has to store that sugar fast or slowly is totally irrelevant.
Diabetes is not caused by using the insulin system (or by consuming carbs or protein). Diabetesis is caused by ingesting protein or sugar when the glycogen depots are already packed, causing a short circuit in the insulin system. (insulin trying to store sugar/protein > not possible > sugar/protein remains high, triggering insulin > insulin trying to store sugar).

[panacea]

It's harmful because by consuming juiced fruits as the primary source of energy for your diet, you are likely to get the effect you just described, glycogen depots full, and still having sugar left over, because the assimilation is a lot quicker than eating fruits naturally with their fiber intact, which naturally takes more time to ingest, digest, and assimilate the sugars. By juicing, it would be difficult to tell if you are going overboard if you aren't already diabetic. Fiber helps make you feel full, and juicing removes a lot of the fiber.

@mario91 the logical argument is that the diet tastes good for being all raw, is healthy when done right (although that's difficult for several reasons, like sourcing quality fruit year round) and for most modern people, taste is the number one priority, whether they admit it or not. A diet isn't that useful if nobody likes it (such as a fermented fish/seafood diet, apparently extremely healthy but it would stink everyone out of your house).

[RRM]

It's harmful because by consuming juiced fruits as the primary source of energy for your diet, you are likely to get the effect you just described, glycogen depots full, and still having sugar left over, because the assimilation is a lot quicker than eating fruits naturally with their fiber intact

You are mixing 2 things up:
1) fast repletion of liver glycogen
2) overeating (beyond glycogen repletion)

They are not the same.
Actually, they are not even related.
You are not alone in this.
People generally think that when you consume sugar, you are inclined to eat too much. But they forget that sugar also rapidly satisfies. It is actually much easier to overeat on a plate of spaghetti than on a bottle of OJ. That is because the carbs in spaghetti are not assimilated as rapidly as the sugars in OJ are. So, by the time you realize that you already had enough, that entire plate of spaghetti has been finished already. Drinking one bottle of OJ in one sitting, however, is far more difficult / unlikely.

By juicing, it would be difficult to tell if you are going overboard if you aren't already diabetic.

Obviously, you are not a juice drinker.
Any person who is used to drinking juices, can tell you that the opposite is true; the sugar in juice is rapidly 'detected', unlike complex carbs, preventing you to overconsume energy.

Fiber helps make you feel full, and juicing removes a lot of the fiber.

Feeling full because of a full stomach is totally unrelated to the satiety caused by nutrients.
Drinking waster, for example, makes you full, but does not create satiety.
Fiber makes you feel full, but does not create satiety.
So, yes, eating fiber makes you full, but it is in no way related to detecting under-/overeating.
Exactly this is why eating 'healthy' (lots of fiber) does not directly help you to lose weight; it does not cause satiety.
It actually alienates you from your own energy needs.
And that is exactly what causes diabetes: a disconnection between energy intake and energy needs.
Simple, rapidly assimilated sugars are readily detected, helping you to stay connected to your actual energy needs.

Drinking mostly juices, you will spend your drinks on replenishing lost glycogen.
Eating normal foods, you readily over-indulge, resulting in overeating from time to time.
The former prevents diabetes.
The latter the opposite.

[mario91]

There's no logical argument for a fruit-based diet.

Of course there is:
Consuming mostly fruits, and a little animal food, you will ingest all required nutrients,

There is no logical argument for it being THE most ideal diet, that's what I was trying to say. You haven't managed to point any real advantage of a fruit-based diet over an animal food based diet, while I've pointed several evidence and signs, both scientific and empirical, pointing to the advantage of the latter.

Panacea, on fruit tasting better and people valuing taste above all, that's all true, but we simply can't relent to that. There are many ways to make raw carnivore taste good, this is not a diet where eating raw organs, chugging raw eggs and eating fermented fish/meat is required. I don't eat any of that and I believe I'm getting perfect nutrition. All I eat is raw meat and fish sliced thin, raw egg yolks with mashed fruit or smoothies with fruit and raw butter, and raw cheese (and fruit). All of these foods taste better than fruit to me, and above all are much more satiating.

[RRM]

There is no logical argument for it being THE most ideal diet, that's what I was trying to say. You haven't managed to point any real advantage of a fruit-based diet over an animal food based diet,

Both diets supply all required nutrients.
Scientific studies show that consuming fruits is good for your health in general.
And consuming less animal food is better for the planet, of course.

[mario91]

And consuming less animal food is better for the planet, of course.

No, it isn't. I've throughly debunked that. Consuming less industrial animal foods is, because they're fed farmed plants, but consuming more grass-fed / wild, local animal foods and less farmed plants (they only type you can get in any decent ammount) is better for the planet.

[RRM]

No, it isn't. I've throughly debunked that.

No, you didn't. Only if you close your eyes for the fact that this world is densely populated.

Consuming less industrial animal foods is, because they're fed farmed plants, but consuming more grass-fed / wild, local animal foods and less farmed plants (they only type you can get in any decent ammount) is better for the planet.

Yes, in a world with not so many people.
You are simply neglecting the fact that consuming animal food is an inefficient way to ingest the required nutrients. It is not sustainable with the current world population, and rapidly growing.
Obtaining your nutrients from plant foods directly is way more efficient.
There is general consensus about this. And just common sense.

[mario91]

There is general consensus about this. And just common sense.

Appeal to authority. Common sense, it certainly isn't, it's only the parroted narrative by the authority figures. Sometimes the authority is wrong or even deceitful, and someone like you should know this better than most.

Dense population is not by any means a valid argument, because, first of all, the population is only growing in the developing world. So my argument undeniably applies to the developed world, which is where 95% of us and the people in this conversation are from.

But even in the whole world there's definitely enough pasture land. Maybe there won't be enough usable land in general if we keep wrecking the soil with modern plant agriculture (which is indeed the only way to feed everyone a plant-based diet, even more a fruit-based diet).

Also, now that I remember, I've read somewhere that you admitted you can't feed the whole world a fruit diet, which is probably true. Yet, the ones who can do it should do it. And that's definitely true. Doesn't matter if we can't feed the whole world an animal-based diet. The ones who can do it should do it. And the ones, in this case, are not even any modest ammount, it's basically the whole Western population. (Maybe in the developing world they should start thinking about contraception instead of plant-based diets, I don't know... but that's another story.)

[mario91]

Just to clarify things, I'm not advocating the whole world adopt a grain-fed meat-based diet. That would truly be unsustainable. I'm advocating a pastured / wild-caught meat-based diet.

[Aytundra]

... I'm advocating a pastured / wild-caught meat-based diet.

You are dreaming Mario.
Wildlife is in extinction mode.

However, if you are interested in pursuing that ideal,
then you should move to Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada.
The Plains aboriginals lived there, and hunted bison in traditional ways.
One technique was to corner the bisons to a cliff and have them jump off of it. Then they go around and collect the bisons from the bottom for food.
Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump is a UNESCO site.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHB4jhmXSFg

The problem is that currently there are no buffalos there.
According to this site: https://defenders.org/bison/basic-facts
There are not many buffalos left: "An estimated 20 to 30 million bison once dominated the North American landscape from the Appalachians to the Rockies, from the Gulf Coast to Alaska. Habitat loss and unregulated shooting reduced the population to just 1,091 by 1889. Today, approximately 500,000 bison live across North America. However, most of these are not pure wild bison, but have been cross-bred with cattle in the past, and are semi-domesticated after being raised as livestock for many generations on ranches. Fewer than 30,000 wild bison are in conservation herds and fewer than 5,000 are unfenced and disease-free."

You will have to repopulate the wild Mario, or else switch to gardening.

[mario91]

... I'm advocating a pastured / wild-caught meat-based diet.

You are dreaming Mario.
Wildlife is in extinction mode.

I don't doubt it. Still, there's always gonna be a percentage (of wild animals in our diets) which will be sustainable, even if it's 5%. Quality fish will always need to be wild-caught, and there's still some, I guess. But even then, we definitely don't need wild animals, we can rely on 100% pastured animals.

You will have to repopulate the wild Mario, or else switch to gardening.

"Gardening" (in any significant, profitable scale) destroys ecosystems. Pasture creates them.

[RRM]

Appeal to authority. Common sense, it certainly isn't, it's only the parroted narrative by the authority figures. Sometimes the authority is wrong or even deceitful, and someone like you should know this better than most.

Yeah, you are right.
But obtaining your nutrients from fruits instead of animal food, is more efficient; it takes less resources compared to animal food. We can agree about that, no?

[mario91]

Appeal to authority. Common sense, it certainly isn't, it's only the parroted narrative by the authority figures. Sometimes the authority is wrong or even deceitful, and someone like you should know this better than most.

Yeah, you are right.
But obtaining your nutrients from fruits instead of animal food, is more efficient; it takes less resources compared to animal food. We can agree about that, no?

Maybe, but not by any significant difference. Efficiency is secondary to health. Like I said, we should completely switch to grass-fed animals, which don't deplete any resources. It's sustainable in every way. Maybe we'd just need more people working in agriculture but at the current 5% rate it's perfectly reasonable. In terms of personal monetary cost, as I've also said, I don't see a big difference. People have always eaten animal-based (over 50%) diets up until 100 years ago, so I really don't see how could it be a problem today with much more technology and all other kinds of acessibility.

But after all that, you can't even say obtaining nutrients from fruit/plants is efficient because the bio-availability is very low compared to animal foods, except on carbs/calories and water soluble vitamins.