When I need to fly, I always try to request a fruit plate or a vegan dish of some kind, or at least vegetarian, even though I am unlikely to eat most of it.

This year I got lucky on my way to Europe with the fruit on a Lufthansa flight, and it made the trip more pleasant.

I found a very big papaya in a local growers store, around 13 inches long. And it was good too.

Fruitarian Salad - a somewhat complex non-sweet fruit salad recipe, with my usual spices and herbs, and with some additional ingredients this time like chives, oregano, sage, thyme, marjoram, basil, rosemary, etc. - raw vegan, for Winter and cold - a 30-minute improvised video:

Hope you liked some of my ideas and got your own!

In 1991, approximately 200 studies that examined the relationship between fruit and vegetable intake and cancers of the lung, colon, breast, cervix, esophagus, oral cavity, stomach, bladder, pancreas, and ovary are reviewed.

A statistically significant protective effect of fruit and vegetable consumption was found in 128 of 156 dietary studies. For most cancer sites, persons with low fruit and vegetable intake (at least the lower one‐fourth of the population) experience about twice the risk of cancer compared with those with high intake, even after control for potentially confounding factors.

For lung cancer, significant protection was found in 24 of 25 studies after control for smoking in most instances. Fruits, in particular, were significantly protective in cancers of the esophagus, oral cavity, and larynx, for which 28 of 29 studies were significant. Strong evidence of a protective effect of fruit and vegetable consumption was seen in cancers of the pancreas and stomach (26 of 30 studies), as well as in colorectal and bladder cancers (23 of 38 studies). For cancers of the cervix, ovary, and endometrium, a significant protective effect was shown in 11 of 13 studies, and for breast cancer a protective effect was found to be strong and consistent in a meta analysis.

It would appear that major public health benefits could be achieved by substantially increasing consumption of these foods.

A new study tested the psychological benefits of a two-week clinical intervention to increase fruit and vegetable consumption in 171 young adults (aged 18–25).

Participants were randomly assigned into

1. a diet-as-usual control condition,
2. an ecological momentary intervention (EMI) condition involving text message reminders to increase their consumption plus a voucher to purchase fruits and vegetables,
3. or a fruit and vegetable intervention (FVI) condition in which participants were given two additional daily servings of fresh fruits and vegetables to consume on top of their normal diet.

Only participants in the last group (FVI) condition showed improvements to their psychological well-being with increases in vitality, flourishing, and motivation relative to the other groups. No changes were found for depressive symptoms, anxiety, or mood.

Giving young adults fresh fruit and vegetables to eat can have psychological benefits even over a brief period of time.

In a presentation published on youtube, Chef AJ, who is certified in "Plant-Based Nutrition" from Cornell University,  describes the concept of calorie density, promoting weight loss. She claims that you can eat as many of non-sweet fruit and other low in starch vegetables you want, because: 

"...their mostly waner, and fiber and nutrients, you know, you actually spend more calories, chewing non-starchy vegetables and digesting them than in the calories."

My response: 

Why every lecture like this must contain some nonsense? One hour chewing burns only ~10 food calories!

There is no scientific evidence to show that any vegetables or fruits have a zero or negative caloric impact. 

Celery has a thermic effect - "the amount of energy expenditure above the resting metabolic rate due to the cost of processing food for use and storage" - of ~ 8%, much less than the 100% or more required for a food to have "negative calories". A large piece of celery provides almost 10 calories, but the body expends less than one calorie processing it.

Proteins require the most energy to digest but their a thermic effect is 20%–30% only. A commonly used estimate of the thermic effect of food is about 10% of one's caloric intake. 

Chef AJ replied through her profile Wight Loss Wednesday:

After I provided a link to this article with explanation to a viewer who replied to me with ""chewing and digesting".. digestion does not come for free," Chef AJ responded to my comment as well. First she said: 

I was talking about BMR.

Then she shared this link:

http://lethow.com/health/negative-calorie-foods/

In this article they just repeat the false information: 

Consuming Negative calorie foods will burn more calories in chewing and digestion process  as compared to the calories they provide for the body. Eating these foods will create a calorie-deficit in the body, ultimately helps in weight loss.

Towards the end they admit that:

Our body uses around 10-15% of calories of the food we eat, in order to digest them. Our body also needs energy to break down the food  compound and absorb carbohydrates, proteins, minerals fats, and other nutrients. Our body generates energy from the food we intake.

But they also imply that much more energy is burned by absorption of food. After mechanical and chemical digestion, which require most energy to break the pieces and molecules of food down, they assume or try to make you believe that absorption through the small intestine into the blood would take more than 90% of the calories of these foods for the total to be negative! There is no known scientific foundation for such assumptions. It even goes against common sense to think that the mere absorption of broken down nutrients would require ~10 times more energy than actual breaking down, or to imagine that we could survive with such inefficient bodies. Even if this were true, nutrients from other foods would require similar amounts of energy to be absorbed. 

Basal metabolic rate (BMR) is the minimal rate of energy expenditure, usually per day or hour. The measurement requires a strict set of criteria to be met, which include being in a physically and psychologically undisturbed state, in a thermally neutral environment, and in the post-absorptive state (after the food is digested). I do not know what exactly Chef AJ was pointing towards here. 

They also list most non-starchy vegetables and fruits as calorie-negative! How irresponsible. The site, which calls itself "the ultimate guide," does not list any links to their sources, of course. They don't even have about pare or sign their articles. This site looks like an advertisement project, with the content created entirely by paid-per-word copywriters.

As a fruitarian whose energy comes primarily from those fruits, I would be dead not only by now, but after any couple of month period in the last 20+ years. 

These are the fruits and vegetables they list:

Please, don't believe just anyone on the internet, always check the information you rely upon. 

Hibiscus tee, apologies for the errors in my English, my two white baking plates, fruits (persimmons, apples), seeds (almonds, peanut butter), how and when I eat, recycling in California (SoCal).

Among Chinese adults, a higher level of fruit consumption was associated with lower blood pressure and blood glucose levels and, largely independent of these and other dietary and nondietary factors, with significantly lower risks of major cardiovascular diseases. 

Statistically significant protective effect of fruit and vegetable consumption was found in 128 of 156 dietary studies that examined the relationship between fruit and vegetable intake and cancers of the lung, colon, breast, cervix, esophagus, oral cavity, stomach, bladder, pancreas, and ovary.

For most cancer sites, persons with low fruit and vegetable intake (at least the lower one-fourth of the population) experience about twice the risk of cancer compared with those with high intake, even after control for potentially confounding factors:

• For lung cancer, significant protection was found in 24 of 25 studies after control for smoking in most instances.
• Fruits, in particular, were significantly protective in cancers of the esophagus, oral cavity, and larynx, for which 28 of 29 studies were significant.
• Strong evidence of a protective effect of fruit and vegetable consumption was seen in cancers of the pancreas and stomach (26 of 30 studies), as well as in colorectal and bladder cancers (23 of 38 studies).
• For cancers of the cervix, ovary, and endometrium, a significant protective effect was shown in 11 of 13 studies, and for breast cancer a protective effect was found to be strong and consistent in a meta analysis.

It would appear that major public health benefits could be achieved by substantially increasing consumption of these foods.

Diets rich in fruit and vegetables have been recommended for preventing cancer. 

A significant reduction in the risks of cancers of the esophagus, lung, stomach, and colorectum associated with both fruit and vegetables.

Breast cancer is associated with vegetables but not with fruit. The risk reduction is significant for cancers of thelung andbladder and only forfruit.

Bladder cancer is associated with fruit but not with vegetables.