 Just about everyone thinks that fruits and vegetables are the healthiest part of a diet, and who can blame them? This idea is so ingrained in modern culture and conventional wisdom that people don't really question it. There's a very popular quote by plant-based dieters, don't eat too much, mostly plants. But are fruits and vegetables actually healthy? There are several considerations here. One is that modern fruits and vegetables are far different than wild plant foods we've had in the past that our hunter-gathered ancestors used to procure. They are much higher calorically yielding, they are lower in vitamins and minerals, and not only that, there's much less variety. Certain groups of indigenous aborigines, the natives to Australia, used to literally consume thousands of different wild plant foods throughout the year. The second thing is that they are specific to certain parts of the world. Most of these plant foods were adapted from their wild counterpart several thousand years ago, and only in the past few hundred years have they become accessible through trade routes. And even more recently, in the past maybe 75 years, has the average person been able to consume fruits and vegetables as a regular part of their diet. Another thing is the poor conditions that we're growing our fruits and vegetables in now. This relates back to the caloric yield. The mineral content of the soil and the ratios of the minerals and the lack of nutrients in the soil are causing us to have these very high calorie yielding fruits and vegetables that don't really have much nutrition whatsoever. Another factor to consider is the actual on paper value of new nutrition in these animal foods, how the vitamins and the minerals are drastically different from the animal forms. And not only that, they don't contain a lot of vitamins and minerals that animal foods do. In addition, the overarching flaw in the idea that we need to obtain a lot of nutrition from plants is that they require fat to be absorbed. And the only way you can procure fat in most climates at all parts of the year in all regions is from animal foods. So if animal foods are necessary to absorb the nutrients from plant foods, how can we argue the necessity of plant foods in the diet? One thing to go over in general is dietary history for the past 10 to 12,000 years. We know this is when the Neolithic Revolution started. We know this is when humans started agriculture. But how has our diet actually evolved over these years? Before that, it's safe to say that indigenous groups would have gotten all of their calories from either animal foods or wild plant foods. Agriculture comes around and grain consumption replaces wild plant food consumption. So instead of consuming 70% animal foods and 30% plants, now we're consuming, I don't know, 50% to 60% animal foods and 40% grain. And a lot of indigenous groups were still very healthy on these diets if they prepared the grains properly. Because one of the main purposes for plant foods is calories and opportunity. Same thing with grains, except grains are a bit easier to cultivate once you have a system going. So this goes on for maybe five, six, seven thousand years. Some of these groups of people stay true to their indigenous roots and continue to gather plants and procure animal foods. Other groups of people started things like animal husbandry, incorporating agriculture, cultivating grains. And an example of a diet of the Australian Aborigine might be literally hundreds of different animal foods and thousands of different plant foods. Whereas a Swiss civilization in the Loschento Valley might have literally only consumed cheese and rye bread. Some very interesting comparisons here, but oddly enough, the only thing present in both of those diets is the fat soluble vitamin content. And both of these groups of people were incredibly healthy. It's something amazing just to think about in the context of human history and surviving. So let's say for, you know, five, six thousand years, humans subsist mostly off of grains and animal foods. About three to four thousand years ago is where we see these vegetables starting to be cultivated. Whether it's carrots being created, most of these fruits and vegetables have a wild origin three to four thousand years ago. And then they were introduced into Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries for the most part. And then modern access to food, refrigeration has given us access to these plant foods in the past 75 years or so. It's safe to say that even before just the 1900s, that just about everyone consumed predominantly animal foods and grains as if you have a limited amount of resources, whether it's time or money, you need to put those resources where the calories are in animal foods and grains. Because fruits and vegetables, these plant foods weren't exactly excellent sources of calories. It's certainly safe to say that grain consumption through agriculture and fruit and vegetable consumption over the past few thousand years is unrealistic from a logical standpoint. And not only from just looking at the timeline of human history, but also from how we create these foods now and how the access to foods that were only specific to certain regions is available to everyone. I can go to the supermarket, I can get rice, I can get oats, I can get barley, I can get rye, I can get 10 different grains, whereas in nature, one group of people might have lived on rye bread their entire lives. The cruciferous vegetable family is interesting because with a lot of these grains and fruits and vegetables, they can be traced back to their wild origin. But cruciferous vegetables like broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, arugula, bok choy, watercress, all of these originate from one vegetable at the top of the brassica family. So if we could say that well, there are dozens of vegetables that we've literally never consumed before, they are all a result of modern agriculture. Is this something we should actually be doing? And when you look at the nutrient content of these foods, considering the availability, it definitely leaves something to be desired. So it's relatively safe to say that grains and animal products have taken precedent in our diet for most of the past 10 to 15,000 years. And more recently, in the past 75 to 100 years, we've increased our plant food consumption through fruits and vegetables dramatically. Indigenous people used to consume 30 to 35 percent of their calories from wild plant foods in some cases. So it's safe to say that for the majority of the past 10 to 15,000 years, any settled group of people were consuming probably 50 to 60 percent of their calories from animal foods and almost all of the remainder from grains. Maybe fruits and vegetables accounted for literally one or two percent of their total caloric yield for the year. Of course, indigenous groups consumed upwards of 25 to 35 percent of their calories from plant foods. Now, how dramatic of a difference have we made here? Maybe in the year 1900, people had 50 percent animal food, 45 percent grain, five percent fruits and vegetables, and I think that's being generous for fruits and vegetables. Now, people consume 70 percent of their calories from plant foods and 30 percent of their calories from animal food. It's safe to say our fruit and vegetable consumption is way higher than five percent of our total calories. I would even argue that it's closer to the 35 percent that indigenous people used to consume. The main difference is that the types of foods we're consuming, they're lower in nutrients, we have a lack of these animal food nutrients in our diet. The main thing here that we're looking at is what I spoke about earlier, the food access, the resources, and the necessity of consuming grains from a caloric standpoint. Humans need to survive in nature and if you're eating berries in the forest all day, it doesn't matter if you have unlimited access to berries, you will starve to death eating fruit, literally as simple as that. So we can argue from an accessibility standpoint, a timeline standpoint, agricultural standpoint that these foods are not natural, but what about actual nutrients? The forms of vitamins and minerals that occur in plant foods are different than animal foods. Vitamin A is in the form of carotene, vitamin K is in the form of K1. These plant foods don't have any of the fat soluble vitamins that are essential for human health. All of the minerals tend to be bound to phytates or oxalates, which greatly inhibits their absorption rates. This ties into properly preparing grains and soaking them as certain indigenous groups of people that didn't prepare their grains properly had skeletal problems, rotted teeth that we see in anthropological studies. And not only that, they require fat to be absorbed and you can only really obtain fat from animal foods in about 95% of regions and climates. Not everyone has access to coconuts or avocados, which most vegans would have you believe. So a bit of a logical fallacy here saying that you literally would need to consume animal fat to absorb the nutrients in these plant foods. And one overarching thing, if these fruits and vegetables were so healthy and so nutrient dense and so good for you, why do vegans look like ghouls and zombies? Why do vegetarians look like they're withering away? Why are Americans who are consuming higher rates of fruits and vegetables compared to our recent history where there are people in, especially Weston Price's book that's subsisted off of grains and animal foods exclusively that were in far better health than we are now? Of course, there's an answer of well refined foods, sugar, blah, blah, blah, but for me, the two key factors in diet are the removal of inflammatory foods and the increase in nutrient density. Consuming certain fruits and vegetables might remove inflammation from the diet, but they are lacking the key nutrients that are only obtained from animal foods. So of course, various foods, vegetables, tubers, not so much grains did play a role in indigenous groups for dozens to hundreds of thousands of years. I'd like to elaborate more on grains separately as they are an interesting topic of discussion, but overall grains essentially just replaced plant foods in various periods of history. I don't really want to go into specific plant foods because there are so many, but there are definitely some commonly available ones that have a place in the modern diet and exceptions can be made. I could argue that iron corn wheat bread is more natural than modern apple, but reality is, even though that apple has an unrealistic amount of sugar and doesn't have a high nutrient content compared to even heirloom wheat, it's much less inflammatory for most people. So just because something is natural, because our indigenous ancestors consumed it doesn't mean there's a lot of like specific nitpicking we have to do with plant foods now. Foods like wild rice, coconut, seaweed, wild berries, local biodynamic fruit, sweet potatoes, and even really just any local high-quality fruit or vegetable that you have access to in your farmers markets, even in your supermarkets throughout the year, there are plenty of plant foods that I would deem acceptable to consume and add many benefits to your diet. In most cases, the benefits you're getting from plant foods are going to be the mineral content. Yeah, even though these minerals are bound to phytates and oxalates, some mineral absorption is not too impaired. You know, potassium is usually pretty good and magnesium is usually good as well. So you are getting minerals, maybe a small vitamin content from certain foods. I wouldn't focus too much on the vitamin content. Of course, now it's weird because spending $16 for a pound of wild rice doesn't make sense when I can get a grass-fed steak. But in most cases, these foods would have been used for an energy source. So what's the verdict? These foods were gathered out of necessity and used for either calories, medicinally, or enjoyment. If you want to include fruits and vegetables in your diet, then by all means keep our ancestors in mind. So if you guys would like to check out some plant products that I deem acceptable, I have some on my Amazon shop. I don't really use them myself. If you guys want to support the channel, please subscribe and share the video. If you guys would like to reach out to me for one-on-one consultations in regards to diet overall health, maybe you want to know what plant foods are okay to incorporate in your diet and especially how to prepare certain plant foods. I know I didn't really touch on it in this video, but especially grains need to be soaked and fermented in various ways in order to reduce the phytic acid content so they don't harm the mineral composition of the body. Most fruits and vegetables did have specific indigenous preparations. Maybe some of them were toxic in some ways, especially things like nuts and seeds. Although I didn't speak too much about them, they did require specific preparation. But that's it guys. If you have any further questions on this topic, please let me know. I think I've covered this fairly well enough to give you guys an idea of some points of argument and contention about fruits and vegetables. If there was really one sentence to say about fruits and vegetables, it would be that indigenous groups consumed them out of necessity and they had to procure actual nutrients from animal foods as the ones present in plant foods were not as available. Something along those lines. Man, I almost forgot to do a makeup check for you guys because with all the comments I've been getting the past few weeks, I might actually lose my mind. So here I have a wet towel. Okay, so I'm wiping my face. Did I wipe my face hard enough for you guys? Is there makeup on the towel? I don't see any. Okay.