if you don't eat any more then you're comfortable with, you usually don't get enough calories - fatigue and other things then become a problem; that's what happened to me. Dates help a lot cause they're calorie-dense, but damn, now I don't want my teeth to get messed up

fruitgirl,
i'm a bit worried about the teeth talk - do you have any websites you go to specifically regarding teeth care? haha teeth care.. sounds funny. tooth care?

Also, about the whole dr. g thing - it's not about following his diet if he's nice or not, we all know that I think; You know, why does he have programs that cost thousands of dollars to teach you about something, and why does he sell books, even simply on recipes that have like 2 things in them? I mean I know you have to make money, but when you're passionate about wanting people to know something you really think is right, you shouldn't sell it in such a way, i don't think, at least without having the intention you want people to follow you. And personally, i don't trust anyone who *wants* to be followed. Anyway, it's also the fact that not everyone succeeds on it, and neither him nor anyone who follows his diet with success will accept that, or at least acknowledge it. Seriously though, there's more to a person whether they're nice or not for diet - it's whether they really know what they're talking about. Dr. G has a p.h.d in chiropracty - not diet - though the book suggests on the front cover "p.h.d". There's hardly any science explained in the book. I mean after reading "The China Study" you would know if there was really science covered in "80/10/10". It's about health, here, and some people had their lives changed by him, others dug theirself into a deeper hole with no help on the board, well unless they were willing to consult. But anyway, let's keep in mind it's in everyone's best interest just to get healthy comfortably and no one diet should be said to be 'the one' for all

iLIVE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if you don't eat any more then you're comfortable
> with, you usually don't get enough calories -

that is completely illogical and counter to my experience.
sometimes we draw incorrect conclusions from our experience - i know i have - maybe you have done that with your conclusion above.

> fatigue and other things then become a problem;
> that's what happened to me.

fatigue is usually not caused by insufficient calories but by other things.


>
>>
> Also, about the whole dr. g thing - it's not about
> following his diet if he's nice or not, we all
> know that I think; You know, why does he have
> programs that cost thousands of dollars to teach
> you about something

is somebody forcing you to pay him?
come on now.




, and why does he sell books,
> even simply on recipes that have like 2 things in
> them?

someone forcing you to buy it?

I mean I know you have to make money, but
> when you're passionate about wanting people to
> know something you really think is right, you
> shouldn't sell it in such a way, i don't think, at
> least without having the intention you want people
> to follow you.

better to sell superfoods right?

he shares what works for him, just like anyone else. intention?


Anyway, it's
> also the fact that not everyone succeeds on it,
> and neither him nor anyone who follows his diet
> with success will accept that, or at least
> acknowledge it.

brian just acknowledged this the other day - perhaps you missed it.

so you think that when people didn't "succeed" they were doing it perfectly?

give me on diet in the world that everyone "succeeds" on

give me an example using yourself if you did it.

there was a girl that posted on rhio that was very convincing that she did it right and she failed. turns out she did many things wrong and admitted it a couple years later.

people "succeed" on cooked for quite a while - so what exactly does succeed mean.


>Dr. G has a p.h.d in chiropracty - not
> diet

there is no phd in diet.

- though the book suggests on the front cover
> "p.h.d". There's hardly any science explained in
> the book.

nature and observation and drawing proper conclusions is science.

I mean after reading "The China Study"
> you would know if there was really science covered
> in "80/10/10".

do you know how many scientific books draw wrong conclusions?

give me one example of someone that "dug themself a deeper hole"

I do 80/10/10. I healed my colitis with it and lost weight. I have tremendous amounts of energy, and trained for a marathon over the summer (injured myself so I couldn't run it). I'm back training again and having a blast.

My experience is that the only people who get sick on 80/10/10 don't follow it correctly (too much fat, too little fruit, no greens, etc). I have heard to people loosing their hair but it grows back thicket/better than ever. In most cases those people were sick.

My site is here: www.raw-food-health.net

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> iLIVE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > if you don't eat any more then you're
> comfortable
> > with, you usually don't get enough calories -
>
> that is completely illogical and counter to my
> experience.
> sometimes we draw incorrect conclusions from our
> experience - i know i have - maybe you have done
> that with your conclusion above.
>

I think it's too harsh to say that that statement is illogical. Let me expand on my experience: I usually feel like I have a ton of food in my gut. Previously to going raw, I would always eat a very small (volume-wise) amount at one time and I am a petite person. I think your stomach is about the size of what one can hold in the cups of two hands. In 801010, the recommended meals are between 2 and 5 lbs of fruit/greens. That can be quite a difference for someone who is used to eating nothing larger than a bowl of cereal at one sitting. Graham argues that our stomachs can accommodate a larger volume of food and he does warn against eating until it hurts. But I have just found that sometimes it is uncomfortable to me. If I don't eat the volume of fruit/greens I crave more nuts. Anyway, I think Graham has a lot of good things to contribute and I think that one doesn't even have to follow him strictly in order to receive benefits from his theories.

<but it grows back thicket>

holy crap i dont want any bushes growing out of my head!



but seriously iLive,

i dont necessarily blame high fruit or dried fruit for my dental problems
also i went a few years with no dental exams. that i do regret now.
im just recommending take extra dental care
and dont neglect the greens

annex Wrote:

> In 801010, the recommended meals are
> between 2 and 5 lbs of fruit/greens. That can be
> quite a difference for someone who is used to
> eating nothing larger than a bowl of cereal at one
> sitting.

at its core, 811 is eating raw fresh ripe organic plants until you are satiated.

that's it.

he gets into other issues like the above as a way to help with certain peripheral issues that may never come up for most people.


> If I don't eat the volume of fruit/greens I
> crave more nuts.

it may be related to volume, or may be related to lingering addiction.
either way, it's not a problem unique to 811.

>Anyway, it's also the fact that not everyone succeeds on it, and neither him nor anyone who follows his diet with success will accept that, or at least acknowledge it.

i didn't succeed with knitting a shawl for my grammy - does that mean the method for knitting a shawl is flawed?

belaboring the point here, but if the diet consists of eating all the fruit you care for, and all the veggies you care for,, and maybe some nuts and seeds, and

when someone "fails", the diet is blamed....

tell me what exactly is the better suggestion?

dried foods? frozen, cooked, stimulants, olives, superfoods?

people simply don't want to admit that they don't give it enough time, or don't eat quality food fresh and ripe and whole.

fatigue is caused by salt, condiments, non fresh food, and many other things including internal bodily cleanliness, etc. not undereating.

Here's a nice graphic table from: [www.nutritiondata.com] to see how much Carbs - Fats - Protein are in any given food. The table is called CALORIC RATIO PYRAMID.

Its clear that for many people, 80/10/10 doesn't work for them. And for many others, it does work for them.

For the people that say it doesn't work for them, there are always those who say that it is the fault of the diet, rather than the fault of the dieter. This is a natural position to take, since who want to say they did the diet wrong, or that they weren't mentally/emotionally/physically ready to do the diet?

So rather than examine how they went about the diet, or examine how perhaps they weren't ready for the diet, what results is an onslaught of justifications and reasons why the diet is inadequate, or the person teaching about the diet is inadequate.

For those of us who are doing well on this diet, any amount of barrage of specious arguments aren't going to change our position. Since it works for us, nothing can be said that can change our experience.

Its OK that this diet doesn't work for everyone. There is no shame in that. But how about some honesty about why it didn't work for you, and share the difficulty of your experience, rather than making statements that are blanket conclusions about the inadequacy of the diet or its originator?

Thank you, Bryan, for your great post. I agree entirely. 811 has been working just fine for me for nearly a year.

god damn! haha. knitting and eating are two pretty different things; i don't really understand that metaphor.

All I'm saying is that just because one person may have f-ed up the diet and said they followed it doesn't apply to everyone who did it. There's no law that even says "raw is better then canned and cooked foods" - some people ARE happier eating cooked foods, and there are people who don't have diseases or die in pain that don't eat raw. Raw is also a very general term.

Everything you argued though, fresh, is all in the book, 80/10/10. It rejects "superfoods", cooked food, salt, seafood, etc. etc. anything that isnt a fruit, nut or leaf. So yes, I am saying, if 811 did not work for a person, then they should eat superfoods if that works for them. Or to steam a vegetable if that works for them, if that makes them happy and if they don't feel terrible when they eat it and their body does not fall on the floor and flap around and die. I know, a little exaggerated, but seriously, it's what the book implies. I remember he reffered to a diet of "811 on conventional or not at all" as choosing to shoot yourself in the foot or the hand. Like come on dude.

As for science, I just don't see it as scientific. It may very well be scientific enough for you, but hey, for me it does not explain much. I was only saying he didn't have a p.h.d in diet because it says it on the front cover and implies that he must know about nutrition. But i mean, backs and food aren't the same thing, and it never says what he has it in, just how many people he's trained and helped. I mean it's not going to say who he couldn't help..or the diet couldn't help. no book will do that that wants to make money, or wants people to actually do the diet. I'm not saying the whole thing is a scam but I'm not ruling out the fact either, and hey, that's a human instinct put to use right there.

as for food, I really couldn't eat what he was suggesting without bursting or feeling tired from all of the digesting and bloating. Yes, I followed his plan spot on for a month plus. I was barely getting 1000 calories down and dropped a lot of weight in about a week. I mean, you can call it detox if you want, but when I started doing my own thing I felt better, and am still doing tweaks and pulls and still learning knew things all the time. I'm not saying it's a bad idea that fresh food should play a large part in the human diet, but I am saying it probably isn't a good idea to suggest one man knows the human diet when we all damn well know there is probably someone out there who failed on it when doing it long enough or 'correctly' enough.

But please don't get the wrong idea; i'm not here to accuse anyone. I'm just here to point out the possibilities and discuss our options in a broader aspect; ideas are a wonderful thing and to see someone find their path is just great. Whether they got an idea from someone else or put together their own thought all together..as long as it suites them well. But for someone to tell you what you should eat to be the best feeling or to be this ideal person, because they know for sure...well I just don't follow that. I just simply can't put my whole belief in food in one person. No one is absolutely sure...maybe

thanks fruitgirl,
i was thinking of doing just a brush right after i eat some dates with just water. perhaps some flosss. I always brush at night for like four minutes..electric way babyy. and floss!
As for greens - it's always a loot of lettuce-organic , never usually spinach or dandelion greens or anything like that. I don't know if it's enough minerals or what. hm. hope so.

iLIVE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> All I'm saying is that just because one person may
> have f-ed up the diet and said they followed it
> doesn't apply to everyone who did it.

everyone i've seen who doesn't do well does something wrong - that's not a personal attack, just an observation. there may be genetic issues such as fatty acid conversion problems or others of that sort that preclude success...
if you take richard b for example, how many people would have gone through what he did, didn't stick it out, and said the diet failed? a couple people here said they had problems, posted what they did, and were doing things not quite as well as could be done that were causing fatigue, etc...

> There's no
> law that even says "raw is better then canned and
> cooked foods"

then you don't understand the science behind raw.


- some people ARE happier eating
> cooked foods, and there are people who don't have
> diseases or die in pain that don't eat raw. Raw
> is also a very general term.
>

there is no person that eats cooked that is fully healthy internally. raw does not lead to perfection, but being happier is not a good measure of validity.



> a fruit, nut or leaf. So yes, I am saying, if 811
> did not work for a person, then they should eat
> superfoods if that works for them.

if a person decides something is not working, that is certainly up to them to make whatever changes they feel. i would want to try and find out why and attend to that - and would question why superfoods suddenly makes their diet work.



> Or to steam a
> vegetable if that works for them, if that makes
> them happy and if they don't feel terrible when
> they eat it and their body does not fall on the
> floor and flap around and die.

not judging people for what they do, just questioning the trashing of the diet without justification.


>
> As for science, I just don't see it as scientific.
> It may very well be scientific enough for you,
> but hey, for me it does not explain much. I was
> only saying he didn't have a p.h.d in diet because
> it says it on the front cover and implies that he
> must know about nutrition.

he did study nutrition. having a phd does not mean you know about nutrition.
and the phd is not implying anything other than it's his name.


>I'm not saying
> the whole thing is a scam but I'm not ruling out
> the fact either, and hey, that's a human instinct
> put to use right there.

please tell me the flaw in eating fruits vegetables and nuts and what your improvement is and why.

>
> as for food, I really couldn't eat what he was
> suggesting without bursting or feeling tired from
> all of the digesting and bloating. Yes, I
> followed his plan spot on for a month plus. I was
> barely getting 1000 calories down and dropped a
> lot of weight in about a week.

another failure blamed on the diet bites the dust.
thank you for your honesty.

you clearly did not understand what you were doing, nothing personal intended, which is why Richard B is so right on about doing what his body tells him.

you should not generally eat when you don't feel like eating,especially in your circumstance as described.

the dietary "plan" is not for all times, especially during the beginning.
you might not be hungry for a day, or a week.
then don't eat!
graham, of all people, is interested in trusting the body.


so your failure was in a week? i had diarrhea for a week when i started raw 25 years ago.
i could have given up and called my dietary change a failure too.


> but I am saying it probably isn't
> a good idea to suggest one man knows the human
> diet

it's not about one man.
it's a book that simply explains in detail why we are best eating
raw plants. this fact does not require a phd or science, simply observation and logic.

when we all damn well know there is probably
> someone out there who failed on it when doing it
> long enough or 'correctly' enough.

yes. b12, or organ problems, or genetic problems, or food quality problems, or various other problems can cause failure...

yeah, i did blame the diet. because what i was eating...wasn't working. If i didn't eat, i would have gotten even less calories and probably would have had to not move all day. Ok, you want me to do that? probably. but just because i could have doesn't mean it would have worked. you can not say for sure that this diet will work in some way or another for someone because you are not everyone else. I'm sorry, it's the facts. It works for you, that's great, anything that feels like it works for someone you think would work for everyone else, but it's not so. If someone discovers that they like cherries and say to a person, "no really, they will taste great, just eat them" and the person does not like them then they don't like them. If a diet causes problems (yeah i think the diet is causing the problems) then it's not working out for someone. different tastes, different genes, different past, different diet
Humans are more then animals, they also have the incredible logic to learn about history, hold language and present even more emotions then animals have. Our brains are so in depth and confusing and if our minds aren't in sync with the body, then that person will not be happy. And there's no point in living if you aren't happy with who you are or in general. To just discard all the information any human has ever come up with about diet in the past and to say it's best to follow just fruit, greens, nuts *for sure* is following one person's idea. And yes, people do live happy healthy lives eating cooked food. Is that to say maybe eating fruit doesn't work for them? Well no, I believe maybe it could. But it's not the depth of all of their problems.
Observation and logic is science...just more in depth.

problems paired with maybe the wrong diet cause failure.

I never said it couldn't work for everyone, but i'm not saying it will definitely work either. And I'm not blaming it on whoever does it, and i'm not blaming it on the diet for sure. But I'm acknowledging that any of those options could be the case, plain and simple. The human diet has a long history, and to some people hunting and gathering seems to be the perfect option. It seems to make logical sense to some people by observation -- that doesn't make it correct as science has proved quite a bit about eating too much meat. But it doesn't make it wrong either. Anything could be possible. Observations on Dr. G are just thoughts, and suggestions to say that it could be the case of a scam. It just COULD be. The way you replied makes it seem like you've known him for years and you know for sure it isn't. But come on...there's no fault in saying it's possible. Or it's not a scam, but a case of a man believing truly what he eats is what everyone else should eat and could be ...wrong. Could be. Maybe possibly, not for certain, but perHAPS.

trusting the body could also be listening to it on a diet transition. it doesn't mean trusting it will lead to fruit.

anyway, i do believe in trust in the body, eating a comfortable amount of raw foods, and staying healthy up top in the head.

iLIVE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yeah, i did blame the diet. because what i was
> eating...wasn't working. If i didn't eat, i would
> have gotten even less calories and probably would
> have had to not move all day. Ok, you want me to
> do that? probably.

the bottom line is that yes, it would have been better to listen to your body. your "diet failure" has nothing to do with the Food, but with you forcing something and being unwilling to rest.

there's nothing wrong with that, but your brief foray does not invalidate the diet, because you make the false assumption that you go right in to the diet plan and ignore everything including your bodily signals.


> To just discard
> all the information any human has ever come up
> with about diet in the past and to say it's best
> to follow just fruit, greens, nuts *for sure* is
> following one person's idea.

if you were placed in a natural environment with no tools, what would you eat? raw fresh fruits and veggies. that is 811.
no science that i am aware of disputes that we can thrive that way.
sitting in houses on computers does not cause us to be unable to thrive that way.

all you've likely done with your dietary modifications is to slow down cleansing
there's nothing wrong with that.
but you are blaming the diet and it has nothing to do with it.


> The way you replied makes it seem like you've
> known him for years and you know for sure it
> isn't.

yes i have known him for years, but again, it's not about him


> trusting the body could also be listening to it on
> a diet transition. it doesn't mean trusting it
> will lead to fruit.

it has to lead to fruit, or else it leads to fat or cooked, or a lot of juicing/blending or whatever.

of course you should transition in a way that works, but you have Blamed the health plan without justification.

the health plan includes a lot of things other than food. rest and not eating when that is required are two of them.

failure to follow those needs will Guarantee failure.

I believe the 80/10/10 diet, or something close to it, probably will work for just about anyone, but at the outset of starting the diet, each person has very different needs, deficiencies and pre-existing conditions to overcome. For some, it's pretty easy to go raw. For others who are quite sick, it can be an incredibly rough ride. The only thing I'd like to see is that there were more forthrightness in the books and forums, alerting people to the problems they may encounter, so that they are prepared and not so prone to freak out and think 'Oh wow, this is a bad diet. It doesn't work for me.' Or conversely, 'Well, I guess I'm a failure! I just can't figure out what I did wrong.' When it doesn't work for people, and they ask for advice, there is a tendency in the raw food community in general (not nearly so much on this board) to blame them ("You didn't do it right", but offer little in the way of explanation or constructive advice.

If newcomers to the raw diet were informed ahead of time, for instance, that if they are extremely toxic and/or malnourished, they may experience hair loss, fatigue and tooth erosion if they launch agressively into a 100% raw diet, so that they will know that they need to transition more gradually than someone else who starts the diet from a place of relative well-being.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

>>> I believe the 80/10/10 diet, or something close to it, probably will work for just about anyone, but at the outset of starting the diet, each person has very different needs, deficiencies and pre-existing conditions to overcome. For some, it's pretty easy to go raw. For others who are quite sick, it can be an incredibly rough ride. The only thing I'd like to see is that there were more forthrightness in the books and forums, alerting people to the problems they may encounter, so that they are prepared and not so prone to freak out and think 'Oh wow, this is a bad diet. It doesn't work for me.' Or conversely, 'Well, I guess I'm a failure! I just can't figure out what I did wrong.' When it doesn't work for people, and they ask for advice, there is a tendency in the raw food community in general (not nearly so much on this board) to blame them ("You didn't do it right", but offer little in the way of explanation or constructive advice.

If newcomers to the raw diet were informed ahead of time, for instance, that if they are extremely toxic and/or malnourished, they may experience hair loss, fatigue and tooth erosion if they launch agressively into a 100% raw diet, so that they will know that they need to transition more gradually than someone else who starts the diet from a place of relative well-being.

Sharrhan <<<<

Those are great points Sharrhan.

Went I started my raw journey I had no idea how sick and addicted I was. I have listened to a lot of people here and to my body and I have been gravitating naturally toward 80/10/10. I haven't read the book but eating mostly fruit, and a small amount of greens and fat makes my body happy. I never could have succeeded on anything but a high raw diet in the beginning. I craved lots of fats. I had to evolve to where I am now and I am not near done yet. I am not sure I will ever be 80/10/10 or even 100% raw, but I just keep doing what feels right and good. 80/10/10 seems to be the direction I am headed.

I see the point that some people are trying to make about the diet not working for everyone and I see the point that some are trying to make that it can't work unless you are "ready" for it and can do it right. It seems like the same point to me.

right on sharrhan

anyway, i have not much else to say about 811. those are my ideas and i'm sorry if you don't understand what i'm trying to say... but i don't feel like typing my thoughts any clearer though i probably could. i'm feeling laaazy and it feels like a pointless argument rather then a good conversation now. i just don't like those.

just to make things a little more clear though: I have said it may be the diet, and it may be the person, it may be both that are a problem. I simply made it a possibility it could be any of them. The body is a strange thing, and not all of the "signs" you can get are so simple for everyone.

but overall..yes the general fruit and greens most people should look into eating. if i were left in the wild, i would have squirrels and a bush of berries, maybe, to eat, where i live. it wouldn't be great.

Seriously though, add fruit and greens to a diet to feel good!

I started following 80 10 10 about a month or so ago and the difference in how I feel is striking!!!

I do have a hard time trying to consume the large volume of food so I started relying more on bananas to get my calories up. This being one of the two problems I have encountered on the diet. Bananas make me constipated :-( The other problem is that due to the high water content of the meals and the natural diuretic affect I not only have to empty my bladder multiple times through out the day (which I dont' mind) but also awaking no less than 3 times per night and early in the morning to go. Basically I am sleeping about 2 hours at a time. Not good.

I tried having a large meal of fruits & greens for lunch and large banana meal for dinner, which seemed to help but then I discovered the banana problem.

Has anyone else had this problem with bananas? Did you just finally have to give them up? Or does the body get use to eating a lot of bananas?

Because I am having such positive results I really want to find a way to make it work. Some of the positive things I have experienced thus far with the 80/10/10 program:

diminished joint, back & neck, feet pain
able to fall asleep at night with out medicating
*moist, clear, smooth skin
*brighter eyes
general overall feeling of contentment
no more anxiety
less brain fog
less IBS symptoms (until I got backed up by the bananas)

*my office manager noticed the improvement in how I look. She asked if I was getting more rest or wearing new make up!! I just laughed because that particular morning I had woke at 3am and could not get back to sleep.

pippin--

You might try following your banana meal with a 'chaser' of 2-4 stalks of celery--something about balancing the potassium in the bananas with the natural sodium in the celery is very balancing.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

Personally I think having a short fuse and thin skin and confusing pity for empathy IS a real red flag and indicative of questionable health and happens to be present in some form in every hygienist I have ever met.

he has changed his tone (for the better) on the boards the last couple of years. I'm assuming is more a PR move after it was pointed out by many.

I agree that many of the above arguments arn't a real strong criticism of the diet. failure may be due on the individual but only because of the blanket statement by Graham that it is the ideal for everyone which I think does sway the responsibility

I've never met anyone (or observed it on the boards) who follows 811 that doesn't see it as a religion. and that believes anything other then that it is the optimum human diet and that everyone who has contrary beliefs or experience is is completely wrong

I find Richard's presence on the vegsource board to quite..uh enlightening to see how entrenched peoples beliefs are


I think Doug has alot of good things to say, and is a great counterbalance to alot of false information and salesmanship. but at the same time I think he helps foster the climate of near-hatred towards people that have different beliefs. Personally I don't think alot of the gurus sell products they don't believe in or that they don't use personally. And I don't think the fact that Doug sells 'information' doesn't mean his consults, fasting and fitness camps arn't lucrative.In the hypothetical, if his 'information' is not accurate does that make it any less healthful/responsible then selling placebos?


he says - quite intelligently - that we should not be looking for the foods that have the most value, but the ones that most mimic nutritional needs. Yet he also says - I think irresponsibly - that no matter what age/lifestyle/employment/location or if you are taking medications or if you are missing organs etc.. that 811 is still the ideal diet and offers his 'consultations' to tailor a diet to their needs. He has also said in his most recently interview that transitioning your diet is not important and that it is better to switch overnight. Someone the makes these kinds of statements seems to be coming completely from a scientific empirical mindset, that sees the body as a machine that just needs to upgrade the quality of its fuel. He proudly states that he simply took all the research of Ornish, McDougal etc and just applied it to raw foods, because raw foods were better then cooked foods and completely discounts any research done from a raw food perspective that has been done in the last 50 years or peoples contrary living breathing experience.

I don't know if he is still saying this, but for awhile he was definitely stating that you could transition (switch) to low fat rv without any weight loss, detox symptoms or change in performance

um..ok

alot of pro 811 dogama is actually just opinions that are designed to seem true by their polarities

to say that a whole food is better then a non whole food is not always true. I would be interested to see how ones body would react to a 92 day tomato diet. or how ones bowel health might be after a 92 day durian diet.

the idea that no supplements are beneficial is false (not saying that living without supplements is wrong). even DG says probiotics can be helpful. Also its always been confusing to me how hygienists rant about how Cousens needs all these expensive supplements in order to be healthy, but that supplements arn't healthful...seems like a contradiction there.

the idea that a water fast is better then a juice fast is false depending on your definition of 'better'

DG comenting on juice fasting "they get better because of the lack of everything else. not because of the juice" um ok I agree for the most part but....so what? because water fasting is the MOST cleansing that makes it the best regardless of circumstances?

the idea that the body cannot harm itself while fasting is false.

the idea that you can't have a low fat low fruit diet is false unless assuming low means 0 and that one has to consume at least 2000 calories. actually even in those conditions its possible albeit not practical.


is a fresh raw fruit better then a superfood or powder. yeah probably, unless the fresh raw fruit is just creating fermentation and feeding fungus, wheresas the superfoods/powders are at least providing clean burning nutrients to many folks that arn't really absorbing much of anything from the foods they are eating. that and slowing down detox which for many people is probably a good thing.

----------
as time goes on and your body is cleaned out internally and efficiently processes nutrients and the whole in your bucket is filled (as Graham says), I don't think there is anything wrong with 811 nutritionally in any way (although I know of a few people who were hygienists for long time and now consume oils and supplements), although there are long term folks equally thriving on diets containing more fats, or mostly greens and little fats, or just fruits or mostly juices.

I think alot of people get involved with 811 and really have no clue about its link to Natural Hygine or what their getting into, other take too it 100% and after months on the program are getting into existential arguments on the forums! Funny, I've seen more of these people that go from A to B completely dissappear then those who see their diet as a steady evolution.


Kenyan athletes are neither vegans nor low fat nor raw
discuss

<to say that a whole food is better then a non whole food is not always true. I would be interested to see how ones body would react to a 92 day tomato diet. or how ones bowel health might be after a 92 day durian diet. >

I don't understand this comment. Surely a wholefood is always better than a non whole food. Where does the 92 days on tomatoes come into that statement?

I know very little about Dr. Doug only what I have gleaned from reading his book but I have to say that eating the 811 way is making me feel better than I have ever felt before on raw. I have more energy and am upping my training program (running). I am also losing weight which is great and necessary. I am not sure how that will work out in the end - I suspect I will have to learn to eat more fruit!! ha ha - what a hardship!

Can't comment on the Kenyans except to say I wonder what heights they could scale if they followed 811. (not meant to be flippant - just light hearted cos woke up early, refreshed, joyful and can't do 'heavy ' right now)

92 days of juice = increased health
92 days of tomatoes = decreased health no doubt
depending on if one has a very high level health they might do ok on 92 days of juicy fruit like oranges or watermelon but that isn't many people

I could have listed plenty of whole foods which are less healthful then juiced celery. knowing what would surely come next...I skiped a step.
if one wants to restrict that to foods that are raw, vegan, and that 'one can make a meal out of' I provided the above.

another: 21 days of carrot juice - 21 days of eating carrots.
while running a marathon - periodic liters of celery juice vs 5 avocados or 10 husks of corn

surely you might rethink your statement?




almost every time I've heard Doug talk he mentions the Kenyans as low fat raw vegans



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2008 08:29AM by anaken.

anaken Wrote:
>
> almost every time I've heard Doug talk he mentions
> the Kenyans as low fat raw vegans

Kenyan runners eat beef, drink milk and cook their veggies.

[www.active.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2008 09:29AM by cataplexy.

That article was very informing to read These are the kind of things I am interested in. The different cultures and how they survive.

It seems as if 80-10-10 (not the diet, the percentage) is the key range when reading near the end of the article. Perhaps that is the key-eating more near that percentage. And also to use that energy you're eating of course. This could also just be what's best for athletes - but what human being wouldn't be an athlete in the wild, right?

Kenyan athletes low fat raw vegans?

Low fat? Possibly, sometimes...

Raw vegans - their diet is just about the far from raw vegan one could imagine.

Check this link (Runningtimes).

[www.runningtimes.com]

Oh dear - that didn't seem to work.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

Whatever the venue—a road race, track meet or cross county run—do not bet against a Kenyan, or several Kenyans, finishing first. Kenyan runners are legendary for their unique ability to recover from daily bouts of strenuous training and to perform well when it really counts. Since it is impossible to train hard and race well without optimal nutrition, what role does diet play in the Kenyans’ success? And, more importantly, could eating like the Kenyans help you run fast too?
Nutrition Facts

Kenyan food is remarkably basic: small amounts of roasted meat, cooked greens, fruit, milk and, always, ugali, a thick, polenta-style cornmeal porridge. Made from water and maize (corn), which is traditionally ground by hand into flour, ugali serves as the national dish of East Africa (click here for recipe). Bland and tasteless by itself, Kenyans eat ugali daily, typically as a base for a meat stew and thinned with milk or water into a thin gruel for breakfast. Unappetizing as it might sound to you, Kenyans love it. Lisa Buster, who manages a host of Kenyan runners, including two-time New York City Marathon winner John Kagwe and Boston Marathon winner Catherine Ndereba, can attest to ugali’s lure. "After my runners have been away a day or two to a race," says Buster, "I can hardly get them back from the airport quickly enough so they can have ugali."

Ugali’s central role makes the typical Kenyan diet rich in carbohydrates and very low in fat. The emphasis on dark green leafy vegetables, such as collard greens and kale, fruit, and milk, provides ample amounts of key nutrients: folic acid, vitamins A and C, iron and calcium. Small servings of meat and several glasses of whole milk (consumed in hot tea) provide quality protein and a small amount of fat. Hard-training athletes consciously keep added fat to a minimum, primarily supplied by small amounts of vegetable oil used in cooking.

Mike Kibe, a promising young Kenyan runner living in the United States, provides an inside look into the Kenyans’ typical eating habits. "We basically eat two meals a day: lunch and dinner," Kibe explains, "unless someone is training three times a day to get in shape. That runner will have something easily digested, such as bread and butter or two boiled eggs, following the first early morning run, so they will be ready to go again a few hours later. Otherwise, we’ll drink tea made with lots of milk and sugar before and after our first workout, as well as fruit [following the run] to settle our stomachs."

Lunch consists of more tea (one to two large cups), and a "light" meal of rice or potatoes topped with cabbage and other vegetables, as well as a few pieces of chicken. If hungry in between meals, runners reach for more fruit—as no snack or sweet foods are kept in the house. Following the day’s second training session, the runners look forward to a late dinner of generous portions of ugali, topped with a vegetable stew of sauteed greens and small pieces of beef

Before we spend a lot of our time reading about the details of what Kenyan runners eat (since it has nothing to do with the raw vegan diet) please provide a link to anywhere where Graham has ever claimed that Kenyan runners are low fat raw vegans. I have heard him speak at least a dozen times and have heard his tapes and read his books and have not once heard this reference.

Also, any message board will have extremely skewed representations or samplings of extremely dogmatic or "religious" people. Anyone who uses internet message boards regularly will note this effect regardless of what's being discussed. The new people or those most inclined to be dogmatic or opinionated will spend hours online defending their positions whereas the ones to whom it is merely an aspect of their lives will hardly spend any time online discussing their diet because they're too busy doing other things.

So an anecdotal statement like "I've never met anyone (or observed it on the boards) who follows 811 that doesn't see it as a religion" is meaningless. I've met dogmatic Zone diet followers and dogmatic Atkin's followers, none of this means that somehow these diets are inherently dogmatic. Any cursory glance at human history will show you that our species loves to become dogmatic at the drop of a hat and that every movement, practice, or idea will find both dogmatic as well as more laid-back adherents.

A problem or fallacy also derives from assuming "religiosity" when one is unwavering in a particular belief. For example, I believe that the earth is round, and nothing anyone might say on this board would sway my opinion. This doesn't mean I am religious about the earth being round, it simply means that I am not going to waver from something I know to be true.

Because I might know or believe that a particular human diet is the most healthful (just as each animal has a particular diet on which they thrive) and because I might make that opinion known, doesn't equate with me being "religious" about it. Some people aren't able to make this distinction because they feel threatened if someones opinion differs from their own. A post-modern type of approach where we try to believe that all truths are relative and anything goes and there's no firm reality is fine if that's what floats your boat but not everyone finds that approach to work best.

It still puzzles me to no end that a lot of people seem to expect that ones diet will "make" them peaceful or kind or nice or un-dogmatic, and that any "teacher" who doesn't live up to this is somehow flawed in their information.

The best that a diet might do is give one the room to discover what it is that is making them un-peaceful or unkind. But they have to do the work. The diet will not do the work for them.

Would you assume that the coach with the absolute best ability to coach someone in the high-jump or in basketball, for example, would also be very kind and peaceful? Why do we hold nutritionists to a different level of accountability? Again, I must reiterate that if I expected my sources of information to demonstrate the high levels of contingent high value character traits that some seem to, I would be as dumb as a doornail, and twice as ignorant, by this time.

As far as Richard Blackman is concerned, he does not claim in the slightest to follow an 80/10/10 diet so I don't understand the relevance of bringing him up in this context. He says he is on the path to breatharianism. Breatharianism has nothing to do with a low fat raw vegan diet.

One final point to your sort of puzzling attempt to explain that somehow the concept of preferring whole foods is wrong (???) 92 days of tomatoes is a pointless discussion because it no longer fits into the context of what is promoted as a healthful diet calorically speaking. When we discuss the difference between whole and refined foods we are discussing it in the context of a healthful diet. Once you begin creating unhealthful scenarios that nobody would ever aspire to, the discussion becomes absurd. But I would say that if I were to somehow be forced to eat a tomato diet for 3 months, and were able to consume ample calories, I would certainly choose it over a 90 day juice diet, no problem. I've eaten only tomatoes before for 3 days and felt great. I've eaten only juice for 3 days and felt rather poorly. I prefer my food with fiber, just personal preference.

Edited several times for grammar.



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2008 05:25PM by doghouse reilly.

Hi doghouse

Just to clarify, I am in fact quite a Dr Doug fan.

But for some reason word has got around in raw food circles that Kenyan athletes eat raw vegan - I've heard raw vegans claim that. Now whether Dr Doug himself actually said that or not, as it's clearly not the case that Kenyan athletes are raw vegans, this myth needs to be countered before it is seen as 'truth'. Which is why I posted.

I pretty certain that many of the statements that are attributed to Doug were never made by Doug, but were the interpretations of the people who heard Doug speak. For example, I can't see Doug saying that going from SAD to 100% 80/10/10 will not result in any detox or weight loss. I could see him saying that there would be no loss of muscle assuming one ate the same amount of calories, but that is a quite a different statement.

Along the lines of what Kwan wrote about, having the appropriate expectations of the detoxification and difficulties that arise from going from SAD to all 80/10/10, another key expectation that ought to be set for newcomers to the raw diet is a reasonable amount of time to expect for one's transition.

For myself, I took 6 months to go from SAD to all high fat raw. I did high fat raw for 6 months before staring 80/10/10. I transition nearly instantly to 80/10/10, but after doing it a few months, I decided I was controlling myself too much (it didn't feel good to me), so I backed off the 10% fat goal, softened it to 20%, and over the next 2 years I was able to eat 10% fat. For for me, going from SAD to 80/10/10 in a comfortable fashion, took about 3 years.

Many newcomers will transition from their current diet to 100% 80/10/10 overnight, have some difficulty, and blame it on the diet. For myself, I took over 3 years to get there from my SAD lifestyle. From my high fat all raw lifestyle, I took over 2 years to get there. And given that I still go to raw restaurants every few months, and this food contains spices and condiments that are not part of 80/10/10, I suppose in some ways I am still transitioning to 80/10/10 (after doing raw foods for over 7 years)!!!

Thanks for that post Bryan. It was really helpful!


WendySmiling in Oklahoma
www.16weeks2health.blogspot.com
12/17/10.......240/155/125