Bitter fruits are bad or good?

[dime]

i cant believe i still post on this forum anyway

hah why, I thought you like the wai diet?

I wonder what happened with djkvan.. just remembered the endless, pointless discussions with him :)

[RRM]

In our ancestral wild habitat, our fruits were almost all bitter. For this reason I believe digestive bitters supplements or eating some bitter food is extremely beneficial.

Can you back this up?

grapefruit..
orange peels are bitter
tannins in grape skins sometimes can taste bitter
cranberries
paw paw
dragon fruit
kumquat
tamarillo
bitter melon
gooseberry

all of these have some bitter components sometimes

These fruits do not represent the bulk of fruits.
And they are certainly no indication that all our fruits used to be bitter.
Ripe bananas, oranges, melons (not picking a bitter variety) , mangoes etc.
They do not taste bitter, but sweet.

All of those fruits I mentioned taste bitter and usually sweet as well

and make a poor representation of "almost all our fruits".
Dont you agree?

no wild human ancestor who didn't use tools could have possibly had the intelligence (in the early stages) to stay away from bitter tasting fruits or inside of orange peels or other mixed sweet/bitter fruits.

Animals know very well which foods are good for them and which ones are not.
So, that must include early humans.
Of course they were able to match a bitter taste to the fruits appearance,
and stick to the sweet fruits the next time.
Thats how they were able to avoid fruits containing toxins.

psychology works by association and if you eat sweet oranges and they have bitter inside peels

then next time you will not eat the inside of the peels,
as you will associate that part with bitter.

Since when does the wai diet say that you shouldn't be licking the inside of organic orange peels (pesticide free/herbicide free grown in your own backyard for instance), or eating grapes? These are all potential sources of bitterness that until now I had no idea you were against.

I never thought that someone would be licking orange peels, honestly.
We always have advised against bitter tastes, as all toxins taste bitter.

In our ancestral wild habitat, our fruits were almost all bitter.

Can you back this up?

As far as I know, there are several sweet tasting poisonous stuff in the wild, here's two I found after first google search and first result, ... "Cassava ... Atropa belladonna...

You initially clearly wrote "our fruits", and cassava and Atropa belladonna are not fruits.
Atropa belladonna carries berries, supporting my claim that many berries contain toxins.

yes, bitters usually signal toxins, but in the case of fruit seeds or inner peels, it's not going to do much harm, just like getting a little bit of dirt on your hands and accidentally licking your fingers when eating fruit by hand isn't going to kill you

Smoking a cigarette occasionally is not going to kill you, but that doesnt mean it supports optimal health.
Your claim: bitter fruits are good.
My claim: they are not, as in: the more bitter a fruit, the more anti-nutrients and/or toxins it will contain,
meaning less healthy.

Same concept with bitter taste receptors which stimulate the body.

In that concept you may advise to smoke cigarettes daily, to stimulate the production of enzymes eliminating toxins.

And as far as babies or any other state of humans knowing what is good for them, I totally disagree.

Do you really think that we have lost all natural abilities to discern good from bad by taste?
Or that we never posessed these?

[panacea]

These fruits do not represent the bulk of fruits.

They do when you consider wild fruits, not modern selective fruits which are bred for sweeter and sweeter varieties.

Ripe bananas, oranges, melons (not picking a bitter variety) , mangoes etc.
They do not taste bitter, but sweet.

You seem to love considering selective 'modernized' fruits, which are in perfect condition, as the only fruits, that's just not relevant, or practical, or useful, or anything really.
So no, I don't agree that I made a poor representation of the properties of many fruits, I do claim that you're making a wildly skewed defense to this topic though.

you asked,

but i dont know any natural food that tastes sweet and that is bad for us.
Do you?

So I replied with the examples of cassava and atropa belladonna. you seem to have purposely skewed this or misinterpreted this as a reply to your 'can you back up your claim that wild fruits were mostly bitter' request, when it's clearly a reply to your question of 'do you know of any natural food that tastes sweet and that is bad for us?' question.. naming two fruits is not supportive or an answer to the claim that most wild fruits were bitter, so of course this seems as not an innocent misinterpretation but rather an argumentation tactic.

By the way, since I can't time travel to visit early humans, I can only use logic to discern that since many and most fruits that wild primates consume are either largely bitter, or have bitter components at certain stages in their ripening, that it was a common property of fruits in the past, given that there is no reason the fruits would have chosen to go from very sweet to the way they are now in the jungle or whatever habitat nearby outside.

Furthermore, those common fruits in the store that taste sweet to us often have bitter components (like the seeds or the inside of peel, or when not perfectly ripe), and it's ridiculous to presume that early humans always had access to and always perfectly adapted and immediately chose only perfectly ripe fruit, as if that is ever such a luxury in the wild.

Smoking a cigarette occasionally is not going to kill you, but that doesnt mean it supports optimal health.

and sugar tastes really sweet, and yet if you try to smoke it, it will cause carmelization and cause you to cough, or setting some fruits on fire and then inhaling the fumes, is exactly comparable or relatable to licking something to activate tastebuds, right?.. or is it just a foolish way to argue about things and support your point without any reasoning?

It's evident that the world is not as black and white as you make it out to be. For example, everyone lately is worried about candida, and how terrible it is, yet they couldn't survive without some candida. Too much water can kill you, or too little of it, same for oxygen, co2, and many other things. Does this mean that a little of everything is good? (Since this is how someone that is solely focused on arguing rather than truth seeking would look at these statements, I will assume that is how you would think), no, that is not a logical conclusion, it's a narrow minded conclusion. A logical conclusion is to consider beneficial effects of certain things in some regards, even though they have negative effects in other regards.

Logically, in conditions where early humans were not near sources of ripe fruits for a short or long time, depending on their location/travel (because we did walk a lot), it's easy to see the great possibility that we would have had to settle for not so sweet fruits. In these times, stimulating the immune system would've been very beneficial, and what especially stimulating more stomach acid, even for fruits. Well, that is exactly the data on the connection between bitter taste receptors and our body - increased immune system activity and increased stomach acid, and probably other things like kicking the liver into high gear. It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world, with no pesticides and ripe fruit 24/7, and no harmful germs or viruses, but we don't, and we do need gentle stimulation of our defenses to keep them in shape. Of course, nowadays it's common to juice fruits, especially on wai, add heaps of sugar and drown your tongue in sweet tastes or fatty tastes only.

Do you really think that we have lost all natural abilities to discern good from bad by taste?

If we were primitive, with natural upbringing, then yes I believe our senses and our brain would be perfectly tailored to finding the ideal foods in the environment. We never relied on just taste to select foods though, we relied on vision and our interpretation of color and smell as well as tongue taste. Of course, we also wouldn't be afraid to eat things like termites, and I can bet you that your daughter is not going to be like 'oh, yummy, termites!' in her great natural wisdom. We are the most social creatures on Earth with the most associative brains on Earth, coupled with living out of our natural habitat, with zero access to our natural foods (all raw foods nowadays are not our natural foods even if they are in the same category, they are manufactured or processed in unnatural ways, from everything from long shipping distances to infertile soil or wrong climate/soil, unless you grow all your food yourself with optimal practices and location.)

We always have advised against bitter tastes, as all toxins taste bitter.

All toxins don't taste bitter, there are many odorless and/or tasteless toxins, sweet ones, as well as sour and salty ones I would guess. Of course, any of the individual components that actually cause the percieved tastes taken in too large quantities will be harmful or fatal, and any taken in a low enough amount would be non-harmful or non-fatal. It's clear that sugar is the least harmful in large amounts and bitter substances are the most harmful in large amounts, but this does not rule out all bitter substances as totally useless for health just because it's on the low end of the scale, just as pure sugar is not always healthy.

Your stance on this appears to be to cloud the situation with a total bias towards bitter is absolutely toxic and should never be consumed, that is your belief, sure, so believe it, but when you have to resort to misquoting me or comparing licking something bitter with smoking cigarettes, you're not intelligently seeking more knowledge, you're just trying to defend your beliefs. Which is pointless because I or anyone else can't control the way your beliefs change. All I'm saying is that if you are going to try and sound like a reasonable person, then use reasonable arguments and be fair when quoting someone, don't change thread titles to reflect your personal beliefs, and don't act like whatever you know has to be the answer as if you have omnipotent knowledge of the universe. And, if you don't wish to be seen as reasonable, then please understand that you will never have another reply from me in this thread.

[RRM]

These fruits do not represent the bulk of fruits.

They do when you consider wild fruits, not modern selective fruits which are bred for sweeter and sweeter varieties.

Im sorry, but you and i really dont know what fruits were available for our ancestors.
I have been in the Ghanian jungle and picked wild baby bananas,
and boy did they taste sweet!
Sweeter than the imported commercial bananas available in my country...

but i dont know any natural food that tastes sweet and that is bad for us.
Do you?

So I replied with the examples of cassava and atropa belladonna. you seem to have purposely skewed this or misinterpreted this as a reply to your 'can you back up your claim that wild fruits were mostly bitter' request, when it's clearly a reply to your question of 'do you know of any natural food that tastes sweet and that is bad for us?' question..

We are on the Wai forum here.
What is considered natural food on this forum?
Fruits, and raw animal food.
Not cassava or atropa belladonna, right?

By the way, since I can't time travel to visit early humans, I can only use logic to discern that since many and most fruits that wild primates consume are either largely bitter

Primates dont eat wild baby bananas?

, or have bitter components at certain stages in their ripening

They dont count, as we advise to eat only eat perferctly ripe fruit on this diet.
Why?
Because of exact same reason as to why avoid bitter (ripe) fruits: too high levels of anti-nutrients / toxins.
For example: we have always advised against eating poorly ripened tomatoes specifically.
You may say that the bitterness of unripe tomatoes is beneficial.
We say its bad.

it's ridiculous to presume that early humans always had access to and always perfectly adapted and immediately chose only perfectly ripe fruit, as if that is ever such a luxury in the wild.

I dont presume that.
On the contrary.
Ive always said that we now have the luxury of chosing the best ripened fruits (and specific fruit species) only,
which gives us the opportunity of optimum health,
as opposed to our ancestors.

yes, bitters usually signal toxins, but in the case of fruit seeds or inner peels, it's not going to do much harm, just like getting a little bit of dirt on your hands and accidentally licking your fingers when eating fruit by hand isn't going to kill you

Smoking a cigarette occasionally is not going to kill you, but that doesnt mean it supports optimal health.

... just a foolish way to argue about things and support your point without any reasoning?

When i said bitter usually signals anti-nutrients or toxins,
you said its not going to kill you.
The reasoning of my response: that does not make it optimal food.
Bacteria are naturally living in your intestines (and beneficial), and your defense gets trained to control them.
Anti-nutrients are not living organisms such as bacteria.
There are no colonies of anti-nutrients that our defense manages to control.
Anti-nutrients hinder digestion.
Anti-nutrients may kill cells and inhibit the uptake of nutrients, and there is no benefit in that.
Just like many bitter tasting compounds in nature, cigarettes contain toxins.
If your defense gets trained by tasting these natural toxins and anti-nutrients,
why wouldnt your defense get trained by toxins in cigarettes?
After all, the body does have enzymes available to neutralize some of the toxins in cigarettes....
So, in your view, what is that essential difference between toxins in cigarettes and toxins in some plants and berries?

A logical conclusion is to consider beneficial effects of certain things in some regards, even though they have negative effects in other regards.

Okay, then show me a study that supports your thinking that tasting bitter compounds improves your defense.

that is exactly the data on the connection between bitter taste receptors and our body - increased immune system activity and increased stomach acid

Increased acitivity of your immune system due to something you ingest does not equal better health, or anything beneficial. It normally just means it has more work to do.
Same to an increase in stomach acids.
Or do you have data that shows differently?
Does a fever indicate an improvement of your health?

we do need gentle stimulation of our defenses to keep them in shape.

Against all toxins?
Including those in cigarette smoke?
Car exhausts?

Do you really think that we have lost all natural abilities to discern good from bad by taste?

If we were primitive, with natural upbringing, then yes I believe our senses and our brain would be perfectly tailored to finding the ideal foods in the environment.

Im not talking about perfectly tailored.
Im talking about still having some traces of discerning abilities.
So, do you really think we have lost ALL natural abilities to discern good from bad solely by taste?
So much so that now virtually all babies naturally shy away from the good stuff?
How much sense does that make to you?

All toxins don't taste bitter

True, that was a generalisation. I should have said "most".

don't change thread titles to reflect your personal beliefs

This is the Wai forum.
When i think that a title may send the wrong signal,
not in accordance with the Wai diet, i have to change the title,
to avoid misconceptions about what the Wai diet may be.

[panacea]

RRM, your post is full of non-sequiturs and I can't do all the thinking for you, some of this is just easy connect the dots..

Here is my point,

You are asking me things such as what the difference is (in my view) between toxins in cigarettes and toxins in some plants and berries...
First of all, we have to know the context of toxin, since some toxins are not toxins in certain aspects, such as the fact water intoxication exists, doesn't make water a normal toxin. Second of all we have you setting up the question in a way that doesn't really ask a meaningful question. Instead of asking a somewhat more meaningful question such as 'what is the difference in your view between cigerrettes and bitters in some plants and berries?', you tried to set up the question by only comparing the qualifier of 'toxin'. What this does, is compare the highly toxic effect on the respiratory system of the totally different medium of cigarettes and their smoke, to something that is only mildly stimulating the receptors on the back of the tongue, and if the substance is swallowed, or the tiny particles are as from licking the inside of an orange peel accidentally, perhaps later down in the digestive tract, again mildly if it's from something like that or unnatural chemical-free grapes and their skins. As anyone with half a brain can see, almost all of your argument is in fact not a logical argument or discussion at all, but rather a tactic to frame skewed and childish questions to make your theory appear stronger than it is, or make it appear to have substance at all (I believe where you are coming from has great weight in what would have been a good discussion, but absolutely not in the horrible way you are supporting it.)

Your whole post is full of self justifications and logicial fallacies though, seriously.
Like the last line, saying that because this is the wai forum you have to change the title. You didn't, you could have put it in the non wai section, instead you put it in the wai section and changed the title to not reflect the first post in the title, but rather your retort of it. I've never seen you have problems move stuff to non wai section before.

Furthermore, what is so unwai about eating something like a pineapple that is not perfectly ripe? Are you really suggesting that anyone especially in the US is going to buy a perfectly ripe pineapple everytime, or throw away precious money for those expensive pineapples just because it tastes a little strong, or that this is going to harm them more than eating any other food available?

It must be nice where you live to have such a luxury of supposedly perfectly ripe and organic fruits all the time, but that's not the case for the US which is the only area I can speak for. Also, as I'm sure you know, adding heaps of sugar to your orange juice blocks the bitterness taste from signaling to your brain and keeps you from tasting it, just like adding salt to pineapples or sugar to coffee, they block eachother out. So are your oranges really so perfectly sweet all the time without a trace of bitterness, or are you drowning out the bitterness on your tongue with sugar while the 'toxins', as you call them no matter what, still getting inside you and doing horrible things. I think you should go and change the thread titles on all the OJ+sugar threads right now to warn of the sugars menacing effects of masking the taste of bitter taste and impairing all of humankind to steer clear of unripe juiced fruits!

Anyway, that last paragraph was just to hopefully wake you up at how unreasonable and unscientific you are being, in my view.

[RRM]

what is so unwai about eating something like a pineapple that is not perfectly ripe?

The wai diet is about optimal diet.
A ripe fruit is better than an unripe fruit.
That is what this whole thread is about: what is optimal?
Certainly not bitter fruits.

Also, as I'm sure you know, adding heaps of sugar to your orange juice blocks the bitterness taste from signaling to your brain and keeps you from tasting it

I always taste the oranges before buying them (/and adding sugar).