|
![]() |
Table 6.0
Carbohydrate (Sugar) Profile Percentages:
Milks vs. Fruit Blends
Units: % of total available carbohydrates in profile,
for each food item.
Carbohydrate |
Human |
Goat Milk |
4 Sweet |
3 Sweet |
Lactose |
100.00 |
100.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
Glucose |
0.00 |
0.00 |
17.73 |
19.18 |
Fructose |
0.00 |
0.00 |
36.71 |
31.46 |
Sucrose |
0.00 |
0.00 |
42.82 |
49.40 |
Starch |
0.00 |
0.00 |
1.48 |
0.00 |
(Column totals don't necessarily add to 100%, due to
exclusion of minor carbohydrates.)
RATIOS |
||||
Percentage |
100.00 |
60.00 |
144.36 |
121.79 |
Table 7.0
Fatty Acid Profile Percentages:
Milks vs. Fruit Blends
Units: % of total fatty acids in profile,
for each food item.
Fatty Acid |
Human |
Goat Milk |
4 Sweet |
3 Sweet |
Capric Acid |
1.60 |
8.09 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
Lauric Acid |
5.61 |
3.35 |
1.08 |
0.02 |
Myristic Acid |
9.01 |
10.60 |
3.12 |
0.12 |
Palmitic Acid |
25.38 |
32.94 |
24.55 |
16.68 |
Stearic Acid |
7.72 |
10.32 |
5.49 |
0.28 |
Arachidic Acid |
1.21 |
0.27 |
0.79 |
0.00 |
Palmitoleic Acid |
3.40 |
1.11 |
9.60 |
4.42 |
Oleic Acid |
35.32 |
19.82 |
14.55 |
63.73 |
Linoleic Acid |
10.01 |
2.51 |
23.26 |
12.41 |
Linolenic Acid |
0.57 |
0.55 |
16.07 |
2.29 |
Arachidonic Acid |
0.11 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.03 |
Other |
0.00 |
10.38 |
1.43 |
0.02 |
(Column totals = 100%; minor deviations possible due to roundoff error.)
RATIOS |
||||
Percentage |
100.00 |
94.43 |
7.41 |
62.60 |
What we are presented with in the form of Tables 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0 above is a list of numbers for human milk, goat milk, and two fruit blends. Which of the other lists is "closest" to the one for human milk? One approach to this question is to use a simple statistical technique: ordinary least squares, or linear regression, to compare the data.
Recall that we are interested in the fruitarian claim that "fruit is like mother's milk." An easy way to test this, in the context of the amino acid and fatty acid profiles, is to fit a series of simple linear models (straight lines) where the dependent variable is the amino/
The results of these model fits are given below. The merit of the results, or the model fit, can be evaluated via the F and R-square statistics below. The F-statistic compares the sums of squares ("variability" in crude terms) for the regression model (fit) versus the sums of squares for the error term in the model. It provides one assessment of the goodness of fit of the models. The degrees of freedom for the F-statistic reflects the number of independent pieces of information involving the dependent variable used in its computation: The numerator is for the sum of squares of the regression equation, and the denominator for the sum of squares of the error term in the model. The
The R-square statistic measures the amount of the variability in the data that is explained by the linear model. It varies from 0 to 1. There are no hard rules regarding which values of R-square are acceptable, and which are not, though there is general agreement that values close to 1 are "good," and values that are "low" are "bad." Here, I will use a conservative approach, and consider values of R-square of 0.9 or higher to be acceptable, and a good fit, while values much below 0.9 are considered to be a poor model fit and/or unacceptable (i.e., "not a good fit").
To be precise, we can consider the model fit as good/
Table 8.0
Amino Acid Profiles:
Human Milk Fitted as a Function of Profile(X)
Note: F-statistic has (1/16) degrees of freedom
Model |
F Value |
Prob > F |
R-square |
Model |
Goat Milk |
257.821 |
0.0001 |
0.9416 |
Very good fit/ explanation. |
4 Sweet Fruits |
18.785 |
0.0005 |
0.5400 |
Not a good fit. |
3 Sweet + Avo |
27.667 |
0.0001 |
0.6336 |
Not a good fit/ poor fit. |
Table 9.0
Fatty Acid Profiles:
Human Milk Fitted as a Function of Profile(X)
Note: F-statistic has (1/9) degrees of freedom
Model |
F Value |
Prob > F |
R-square |
Model |
Goat Milk |
19.74 |
0.0016 |
0.6868 |
Poor fit/not a good fit. |
4 Sweet Fruits |
4.25 |
0.0693 |
0.3208 |
Not a good fit. |
3 Sweet + Avo |
34.77 |
0.0002 |
0.7944 |
Poor fit/not a good fit. |
Side note: The question of interpreting the significance of regressions is discussed in
The paragraph below is from the article,
"Uncommon Uses of Avocado," by Yasseen Mohamed-Yasseen, Ph.D., University of Florida TREC [Tropical Research and Education Center, Homestead, Florida], appearing in: Tropical Fruit News, 28(1), Jan. 1994,
Avocados are the richest known natural source of the seven-carbon sugar D-manno-heptulose [Simon and Kracier 1996; OtagaNote: References contained within the above paragraph are listed at the end of this section.et al. 1972]. This sugar possesses the physiological ability to cause inhibition of insulin secretion in humans, thereby producing "instant diabetes" [Simon and Kracier 1996]. It is improbable that blood sugar levels in a normal person would be affected by average consumption; however, diabetics should consume avocado cautiously [Bergh 1992].
Comments on Mohamed-Yasseen:
The suggestion by Mohamed-Yasseen that diabetics should consume avocados cautiously because they may suppress insulin production raises questions for fruitarians as well. First, given that most fruitarian diets are high in sugar from sweet fruit, one should be cautious about introducing a food that inhibits insulin production.
Second, those whose diet includes large amounts of sweet foods, particularly fruit, often experience, on an ongoing (chronic) basis, the symptoms of diabetes: excess urination, thirst, sugar highs/
Third, avocados are the prime fat source (and calorie source) for many fruitarians. Despite the "party line" that they should be eaten in small amounts, many rawists eat the equivalent of 1.5-2 or more large avocados per day. (Despite the contrary claims of a few extremists, fat is an essential nutrient. The body knows this even if the ego does not, hence the "cravings"--
Further, Otaga
From the above analysis, we see that:
The standard fruitarian "party line" regarding the bogus fruit = milk theory is that it applies to sweet fruit only. That is, avocados are not included in the theory. Further, the "party line" is that avocados are a concentrated food, to be eaten sparingly. (In reality, they are a staple food for many rawists, including fruitarians.)
Avocados were included in the analysis here because as soon as you debunk one theory, the promoters of crank science theories are usually quick to make new, unfounded claims. That is, debunk the milk = sweet fruit theory, and it becomes a new "sweet fruit + avocado" theory. Including avocados in the analysis here prevents that from happening.
Also, the analysis of avocados given here uses basically one particular analysis of avocado: in effect, one data set. The nutritional composition of avocados varies substantially,
Finally, fruitarians may try to exploit the result shown above which indicates that the fatty acid profile for
Otaga, J.N., Y. Kawano, A. Bevenue, J.L. Casaret (1972) "The ketoheptose content of some tropical fruits."
Simon, E. and P.F. Kracier. (1996) "The blockade of insulin secretion by mannaheptulose."
Slater G.G.; Shankman S.; Shepherd J.S.; Alfin-Slater R.B. (1975) "Seasonal Variation in the Composition of California Avocados."
GO TO NEXT PART OF ARTICLE
(Discussion: Probing Fruitarian Defenses of the "Fruit is Like Mother's Milk" Theory)
See Table of Contents for Section II - Making Sense of the Numbers
See Table of Contents for Section III - Challenging Fruitarian Defenses of the Theory
Back to Waking Up from the Fruitarian Dreamtime
Back to Research-Based Appraisals of Alternative Diet Lore