One of the questions I'm always being asked by raw fooders is about the place of greens in a raw food diet.

I eat a lot of fruits, so people seem to think that means I can't have a lot of greens too. I'm constantly being emailed by people wondering where I get whatever their curious about without greens.

I think there's a huge misconception about the caloric role that greens play in raw diets, so I put together this article in the hopes of clearing the issue up.

[www.raw-food-health.net]

I believe I've addressed the fruit vs fat vs greens question, but I'd love to expand the article if there are additional questions that people have. Please let me know if you have questions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2008 03:17AM by RusticBohemian.

the use of loosing when it should be losing seems to be viral.
but i'm not giving up.

"As an 5'11" male, I need 3000 calories a day to maintain my level of activity without loosing weight."

and i'm not aware of any proof that veggies are required, grahams assertions notwithstanding. i believe there are some people who seem to be thriving without them long term. i eat some, but actually less than i used to and certainly not a huge salad every day. i suppose i must wait 10 years as dr graham says, for the tragic results that he provides no details on as far as clear case studies or the like.

interesting article

I wonder why you chose to point out womens muffin tops and not mens muffin tops?

I knew plenty of men with muffin tops !

boooooo! to you for singling out womens muffin tops !! ;p

oh wait that mighta been a google ad cuz now the pictures changed LOL



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2008 05:38AM by Jgunn.

some birds and bats eat only fruit
why don't they require greens?


a lot of antinutrients in greens and we don't have cellulase from what i know, so we have difficulty digesting cellulose in veggies.

eating a lot of veggies or greens may cause more problems than it solves.


i'm not certain either way with respect to humans and the necessity of greens, but it's all conjecture as far as i can tell.

Fresh wrote "the use of loosing when it should be losing seems to be viral.
but i'm not giving up."


Yes! And "your" for "you're". Some people don't seem to realize that "your" and "you're"(you are) have different meanings.

Sorry about losing. I wrote that late last night after a full day as a reporter writing two stories, so the grammar wasn't at its best.

And I'm really far more concerned with people who who askew fruit for fat and greens than those who avoid greens while eating plenty of fruits.

Most fat eaters tend to have problems, but I've only received a few emails from the veggie avoiders with issues.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2008 02:09PM by RusticBohemian.

The raw leafy greens I suggest are low in cellulose. I'm not suggesting broccoli, kale, etc.

RusticBohemian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry about losing. I wrote that late last night
> after a full day as a reporter writing two
> stories, so the grammar wasn't at its best.
>
> And I'm really far more concerned with people who
> who askew fruit for fat and greens than those who
> avoid greens while eating plenty of fruits.
>
> Most fat eaters tend to have problems, but I've
> only received a few emails from the veggie
> avoiders with issues.


don't take this the wrong way - i don't mean to be a school teacher here
;-)

"askew"

do you mean eschew?

thanks for clarifying above

and i think greens are still high in cellulose, while i agree that the cruciferous are higher.

i don't agree with all that waisays states on website but interesting below

"Though vegetables averagely contain little protein, they
generally do contain Nitrate, which decreases the
bio-availability of vitamins and minerals and increases
the origination of cancerous N-nitroso compounds"

people are naturally opportunistic eaters...that's what makes us able to survive --we have a wide range of foods that are able to be eaten - and while even our closest ancestor (chimp) seems to eat tender greens (i've seen them do it with both meat and fruits)- there is no one perfect diet, such as fruit, no matter how much you may love it or hate greens, for everyone. So even though a fruit bat can eat only fruit and nectar - that's because that is the category they fit into - frugivorous or nectarivorous - as humans we are omnivorous.

Cellulite also is supposed to help us - both insoluble and soluble fiber is good. So just because it's indigestible..doesn't mean it's bad. Sure, you probably shouldn't eat only straight up leaves all day - but in moderation, it's healthy to include greens. Also, most people that do like greens often blend them or juice them, i find, so that is why they probably don't see any problems with the cellulose.
But come on.. there are a lot of people that have suffered from all fruit diets. (there may be some people who haven't..but there are also some people that haven't suffered on atkins diets and other diets. so it's always debatable. But there's no ignoring common history of the homo sapien - that is, we are able to thrive off of many things)

you may find this article interesting...

[www.ecologos.org]

The problem that I have, if you can call it a real problem, with the entire raw movement is that I constantly read the words "a lot", or "most people", or "the majority", & other similar phrases when people that I respect as being more knowledgeable than I am refer to various health aspects of the raw vegan diet..

What I seldom see is attributable sources for such statements..And, many of the sources that I see quoted are only peripherally related to the raw vegan diet..

I see two major issues within the raw movement as regards this..

First, is the virtual non-existence of any credible scientific evidence that was obtained using valid scientific methodologies as far as health aspects of raw veganism versus any of the cooked food diets..Good or bad..Most of the references that I have seen quoted are decades old, & I question their validity when compared to the chemical make-up of the average SAD diet in the year 2008..

No one can deny that the chemical constituency of the foods currently available for purchase in the average grocery store is far, far different from the same, or similar, foods that one was able to purchase 10-30 years ago..

Second, & this is directly related to the first, is the willingness of most within the raw community to refute this lack of scientific data by quoting: "Be your own guru"", or "Just eat what feels right", & other similar sayings..Many within the raw community directly refute the need for scientific evidence for any number of reasons..

We all know with some certainty that consuming a raw vegan diet of primarily fresh fruits & vegetables has the ability to transform and heal any number of diseases & conditions..What we do not know is exactly why the human body reacts so favorably to fresh fruits & vegetables from a scientific point-of-view..

"Being one's own guru" is all fine & dandy, up to a point..Learning to listen to one's own body in order to understand what that body requires is a good thing..And, is probably necessary in order to expand one's consciousness..Which I am coming to understand might be an essential element of the raw vegan diet..

But, I believe that in order to attract large numbers of cooked food eaters to a raw vegan diet there will have to exist compelling scientific evidence that supports our claims..Anecdotal evidence will not be sufficient to bring over the number of people that we will need in order to gain a political base that will ultimately result in changes in the food & health care industries..

I also believe that at some point during a person's raw vegan journey, quantifiable scientific evidence will be required in order to prevent one from making incorrect choices that might lead to poorer health..

Bruce

Woops. Guess grammar isn't my thing today.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2008 04:35AM by RusticBohemian.

fresh, that article is not very scientifically sound and only states what I've already taken into consideration. The science behind the human opportunist is very intense, and very in depth. Just because we do not look like a lion does not mean we weren't hunter-gatherers for thousands of years --when we developed better hunting tools. It's a shame to say even over the last 10,000 years the experts have seen a decrease in size in the human brain. Wierd. They think it's because of the way we eat - the digestive system and brain take up the most energy of anything in the body - and so the metabolism will most likely favor one or the other - like they've seen in animals.

Anyway..there is a great amount of doubt out there both favoring plant-eating and dissing it all together. But remember - the apes also seem to have the perfect body for climbing trees and eating fruit, yet they also eat a large amount of bugs and kill other animals to eat...so..yeah. Just look how different the diet of the gorilla is compared to a chimp or bonobo. Bonobos are actually closer to us and eat more fruit. Does that mean we should eat more fruit? Well if we did that, we would still be bonobos..not people.

I think people that are higher evolved should feel less barbaric, and not want to eat meat for the killing reasons. I mean, the fact that people thrive on vegan diets is enough evidence for me that man can do either one - but the homo sapien has been through a loooot to get here and is constantly changing and should not be classified as only a plant eater, considering the large evidence in the past of how humans ate. If that was a mistake of nature, we wouldn't be here today...you know?

I'd like to add that if our physical appearance should direct how we eat, then it would be true that our teeth tell us we're supposed to eat cooked food that's been softened -- the jaw shrunk because of our lack of need to chew all day. But a lot of people would find this silly, as they do live off of raw food. Just like people who eat meat, live off of meat. The SAD diet is not the only diet with meat in it, let's remember, so yes there are people who can live off of meat and not get sick. This means that humans have opportunistic eating habits.

There's more to discuss as always, but there's always information out there that opposes one thing and it's worth weighing the two out to see which one makes more sense. I can't pull everything I've read in the past to today, but If anyone is really interested, they will look up information themselves on the past human diet and how we've evolved. It's actually very interesting.

I agree with Bruce that science is lacking in the raw food movement -- but I also think there isn't a big difference from a "cooked food eater" and a "raw food eater" because both can have problems with their diet -- therefor I've come to terms it may just be that the stuff IN the food has more to with health, rather then if it's cooked or raw. Again, perhaps if there were better scientific studies on this, I wouldn't have such doubt; but it's important to demand information, I think. It's good to have a lot of evidence to make your view point heard.

iLIVE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh, that article is not very scientifically
> sound and only states what I've already taken into
> consideration.

good. i was responding to the use of the word omnivore.


> The science behind the human
> opportunist is very intense, and very in depth.
> Just because we do not look like a lion does not
> mean we weren't hunter-gatherers for thousands of
> years --when we developed better hunting tools.

thousands of years from now we will have similar proof that that we are pizza eaters and coca cola drinkers ...



> Anyway..there is a great amount of doubt out there
> both favoring plant-eating and dissing it all
> together. But remember - the apes also seem to
> have the perfect body for climbing trees and
> eating fruit, yet they also eat a large amount of
> bugs and kill other animals to eat...so..yeah.

they're hungry.


> Does
> that mean we should eat more fruit? Well if we
> did that, we would still be bonobos..not people.

?


> there are people who can live off of meat and not
> get sick.

not get sick?

>This means that humans have
> opportunistic eating habits.

any animal has opportunistic eating habits, limited by physiology and biology.

i guess nothing i wrote was taken into consideration..

pizza and coca cola is not everywhere, and every human is not doing it. When we branched off from apes, our diet had to be different in order for us to evolve even more -- if we had stayed constant with our diets, there is much evidence suggesting there would have been no evolution - typically in the brain.
Yes, they are hungry, and it might be a significant part of their diet considering they choose to eat it. If you look more into the study of apes you will find some very interesting things...

for example; if a tiger ate mostly fruit over meat, it would probably die. That's because it's "carnivorous"
if people lived for so long off of meat, and there being tribes that still do (without high rates of cancer and heart attacks)..how is this not considered opportunistic and omnivorous. If a person who eats say.. 40%meat (like homo habliis) and could stay at a constant health rate as a person who eats 0% meat ---is this not displaying an omnivore? Yes, animals are all opportunistic to some extent, but we are a large exception. Just like the rat can live off just about anything, and the crow...there is no one set look for an "omnivore" per say. The fact that the world's human diet is SOO incredibly varied shows that we are very capable of adapting.
Considering the human race is incredibly varied - i believe it could be that we all have different digestive tracts, stomachs and dietary concerns - just as the color of our skins changed to adapt, so had our insides, also probably depending on the time of evolving we had to adjust. --Milk is a good one to say we haven't been drinking it long and it certainly is not a food we are adapted to. Gluten is probably another one.

I'm just trying to make it an option that we should look more at human evolution and not ignore anthropology, which I'm no expert in but I can read a true article simply talking about what we were and it not claiming we are meant to do anything. It's just providing the latest scientific evidence. And those scientists should not be considered stupid because they can't see that we don't look like we're supposed to eat meat. I don't think we look like we're supposed to eat fruit either.. actually it's kind of hard to tell what we look like.

Anyway, I said more things then the things you quoted that I hope spread some insight or idea

I'm only trying to keep on open mind..and an informed view on the subject

iLIVE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i guess nothing i wrote was taken into
> consideration..
>

yes it was

> pizza and coca cola is not everywhere, and every
> human is not doing it.

they're almost everywhere.
same argument about meat - not everywhere - many healthy veggie popul.

When we branched off from
> apes, our diet had to be different in order for us
> to evolve even more -- if we had stayed constant
> with our diets, there is much evidence suggesting
> there would have been no evolution - typically in
> the brain.

many other reasons for evolutionary pressure on brain other than diet - i'm sure you're aware of.

> if people lived for so long off of meat, and there
> being tribes that still do (without high rates of
> cancer and heart attacks)..how is this not
> considered opportunistic and omnivorous. If a
> person who eats say.. 40%meat (like homo habliis)
> and could stay at a constant health rate as a
> person who eats 0% meat ---is this not displaying
> an omnivore?

my point is you're making assumptions about health and you have no idea.
ideal health is not required to produce progeny.

> Yes, animals are all opportunistic
> to some extent, but we are a large exception.
> Just like the rat can live off just about
> anything, and the crow...there is no one set look
> for an "omnivore" per say. The fact that the
> world's human diet is SOO incredibly varied shows
> that we are very capable of adapting.

yes the body can handle a lot of abuse. that's not necessarily adapting.

strange then that i and probably you and thousands of people feel best not eating meat and other so called foods.


> I'm just trying to make it an option that we
> should look more at human evolution and not ignore
> anthropology, which I'm no expert in but I can
> read a true article simply talking about what we
> were and it not claiming we are meant to do
> anything. It's just providing the latest
> scientific evidence. And those scientists should
> not be considered stupid because they can't see
> that we don't look like we're supposed to eat
> meat.

the writer is a bit strong in wording yes.

> I don't think we look like we're supposed
> to eat fruit either.. actually it's kind of hard
> to tell what we look like.

what do we look like then...

> I'm only trying to keep on open mind..and an
> informed view on the subject

indeed that is good and thank you for sharing

i do not think pizza and coca cola is everywhere..or at least definitely not the staple of many diets.. Also, it being completely different today then thousands of years ago, the future will probably know that pizza and coke aren't typical foods for us. These are also subcategories of foods compared to that of "meat" and "plants" generally.

yes there are other things that could have contributed to evolution..but ignoring diet i don't think is a good idea since it's very strongly believed that it had a lot to do with it in the world of scientific studies on anthropology

abuse..How is it abuse if someone feels good with the way they're eating and lives the same time span if not longer then someone who may have a different diet?

I was trying to explain that not all animals physical appearances are always what they seem to be. We actually look like we're supposed to eat cooked food from our jaws shrinking..but we don't really look like anything. We are the only ones to be pretty much bipedal and have very unique spines -- there are a lot of things that make us a weird species -- but our looks may be daunting is what i'm saying. A crow and rat don't necessarily *look* like they could eat anything. And it could be assumed that either of them should have a specific diet because of their features as well.

iLIVE Wrote:

>
> yes there are other things that could have
> contributed to evolution..but ignoring diet i
> don't think is a good idea since it's very
> strongly believed that it had a lot to do with it
> in the world of scientific studies on
> anthropology

ok but food sources don't drive evolution as the meat propagandists believe.
and meat doesn't cause bigger brains.
the variances between individuals are simply selected and thrive better due to environmental (food source and other) pressures.

>
> abuse..How is it abuse if someone feels good with
> the way they're eating and lives the same time
> span if not longer then someone who may have a
> different diet?

if we're talking about animal products, i don't think that there are no negative consequences to eating them, regardless of how people say they feel. plenty of people claim to feel fine then drop dead.


>
> I was trying to explain that not all animals
> physical appearances are always what they seem to
> be. We actually look like we're supposed to eat
> cooked food from our jaws shrinking

i don't know why you would draw that conclusion as poor diet in general contributes to poor dental structure.

..but we don't
> really look like anything. We are the only ones
> to be pretty much bipedal and have very unique
> spines -- there are a lot of things that make us a
> weird species -- but our looks may be daunting is
> what i'm saying. A crow and rat don't necessarily
> *look* like they could eat anything. And it could
> be assumed that either of them should have a
> specific diet because of their features as well.

good point and i agree that diet is strange and difficult to draw firm conclusions about.

peace

i didn't read all these posts

but i'm not sure what the argument is

chlorophyll is simply one of the greatest blood cleansers, fortifiers and mineralizers

it is very alkalinizing to the blood

understood that it could be a pain to ingest a truckload of them as rustic bohemian was saying

that's why i drink them

technology has gotten ahead of itself in a lot of matters and is paying for it dearly

but the creation of juicing machines is probably one of the best things that
human beings have created

and is much needed in these times

in the cave people days, they didn't need these machines
cuz the air foods soil and water was pure

thus they didn't need blood purifiers

but nowadays

a blood purifier, mineralizer, alkalinizer is needed just to ward off the constant onslaught of pollutants that we imbibe on a daily basis just by breathing or drinking water or eating foods that are not from clean soils etc.

so.... as far as the original question is concerned

i say greens have a VERY important and crucial place in the diet

to be more specific, "chlorophyll" and all the other adjuncts that come with greens

liquid form is superior, in my opinion, cuz you don't have to spend all day chomping on a tub full of greens

i love my greens
and would never part with them

la v,

i understand you don't wish to debate, but if you have any reputable source that indicates that

1 - we need a blood purifier
2 - that chlorophyll is a blood purifier
3 - that the body can't purify blood without chlorophyll

i'd love to see it.

Rustic Bohemian, the original post article is titled "Everyone Needs Raw Greens". Later it references Dr. Doug Graham on another point. Is Dr. Graham an inspiration for the article as a whole?

In an interview earlier this year Dr. Graham comments:

"...I have always recommended that we eat lots of greens. In fact to my knowledge, I recommend we consume more greens, not only on the 80-10-10 diet, but on any of the programs that I have ever recommended. I am actually recommending more green consumption from whole, fresh, ripe, raw, organic plants than anybody else in the raw food movement. The funny thing is that most people notice me eating fruits and so, they think that that’s what it is all about when in fact, that is not the case. I recommend a huge, in fact as I say it, a greater portion of calories from greens than anybody else in the raw movement..." [www.naturalnews.com]

Any comments?

RusticBohemian,



How long have you been raw? I'm sorry to be critical here but your article, and your site in general strike me as novice, yet you seem to make declarations as if have solved an issue once and for all. I'm disappointed because like you, I believe we need more science in the raw food web world.

You're obviously a talented writer, and if you clean up all the inaccuracies, add some real science, and remove your opinions that are stated as facts, you can really help the community with your writing. It's ok to have inspirations from other writers, but I strongly suggest learning from as many sources as possible, including some of the long term raw foodists on this board.

I applaud what your are trying to do, and would like to see you succeed in spreading the "raw word" but please be informed before you try to inform.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2008 03:19AM by swimmer.

You recommend lots of greens in lots of salads. . . . Well, what kind of dressings are you recommending on all those salads?

What about all the salt, sugar, oils, vinegar (acids), chemicals (additives), and just plain junk in all that salad dressing? What about all the toxins in all that junk? And what about all the cravings that all that junk cause?

I tried eating lots of salads a while back and found that I could not eat them without salad dressing... but after eating a few salads with lots of salad dressing on them my cravings came back and it was difficult for me to stay raw.

Now I don't eat salads--or salad dressings. I eat green smoothies, because I can eat them without salad dressing and all the junk in the salad dressing.

Ron

to Ron: i eat my salads just with a simple dressing of blended fruit - and cut up fruit. yum. no oil or vinegar. (also, not all salad dressings are bad..and filled with chemicals)

Anyway, fresh:
you said meat sources don't drive evolution like "meat propagandists" said..but you don't have any proof of this at all; plus, i'm not talking about meat propagandists, and i'm not siding with them, whoever they may be; i'm talking about anthropologists and scientists in the study of evolution that have strong evidence that our diets largely influenced our brain growth because of the large part the metabolism plays in the brain and digestive system -- if one is to shrink and take less metabolism, the other would grow (in a nutshell). And as i have said, they've seen this happen in other animals.

and you should never assume just because it's an animal product that that person must be miserable on the inside; come on, look at the history of people a little more; it's probably milk that causes the most problems because of it's saturated fat level and the fact that it's only been consumed by people over the last 1,500 years. something like..70% of the world is intolerant to it in some way.

perhaps just because someone starts eating all raw foods and says they feel better are only experiencing a placebo effect? or some could lie and say they're all better, and not really feel anything; or some could actually be suffering...etc. A diet can not be grouped into only cooked and ONLY raw. The same goes for vegan and omnivore. One may suit another person differently. So it's just silly to say one goes for all, considering the huge diversity.

you're aware that we don't possess uricase right?

and have you read colin campbells china study book?

From what I understand, the questioning of uricase is also under constant debate. It's more confusing if you really want to discuss that..but let's just say there are two sides to that point as well. I'm just making light of both --to be sure not to claim one as correct, as they are both theories.

yes i have read his book, but again, i like to know both sides of everything; so i love the book and he did a lot to make a point, but there's always another side and i never agree with something completely

we live in a culture where we think, there must be two sides to everything.

this is how certain politicians are able to blunt real change supported by good science, by saying that everything has two sides and nothing is certain.

i don't buy it.

loeve

Absolutely. I make no bones on my site about the fact that it's Dr. Doug Graham's diet that originally healed me of my problems. I eat so many greens, and thrive, becuase I follow his recommendations.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2008 03:32PM by RusticBohemian.

When I eat salad dressings, they are healthy.

I make ones that contain no saline outside of what is naturally found in greens, no oils, and no vinegars. For a sample of the type of dressing I recommend, check out:[www.raw-food-health.net] Many people load tons of fat onto their salads as well in the form of avocados, which I don't recommend outside of an occasional treat.

But green smoothies are fine if you're getting enough greens.


<I>"You recommend lots of greens in lots of salads. . . . Well, what kind of dressings are you recommending on all those salads?

What about all the salt, sugar, oils, vinegar (acids), chemicals (additives), and just plain junk in all that salad dressing? What about all the toxins in all that junk? And what about all the cravings that all that junk cause?

I tried eating lots of salads a while back and found that I could not eat them without salad dressing... but after eating a few salads with lots of salad dressing on them my cravings came back and it was difficult for me to stay raw.

Now I don't eat salads--or salad dressings. I eat green smoothies, because I can eat them without salad dressing and all the junk in the salad dressing.

Ron"</I>

Swimmer:

I've been raw two years, in in that time have lost weight, healed my colitis, and generally found a level of energy that I can hardly believe.

But I'm not creating anything new here. Dr. Doug Graham, who has been raw for somewhere in the realm of 20 years, basically recommends that same things. Check out the 80/10/10 Diet.

Many of the raw leaders you want me to look at not what anyone needs. Many are ridiculously peddling superfoods and supplements to gorge their own wallets at peoples' expense: [www.raw-food-health.net]

Lack of scientific research in the raw movement? Absolutely. There is virtually none, with the exception of a bone density study and a few other odds and ends. I'd love some solid scientific backing for what I'm doing beyond the China Study and the basic research that shows that that lots of fat is bad and fruits and vegetables are good. The fact is that we don't have it, however, so I do the best I can.

I've used myself as a guinea pig and gone on a low fat raw vegan diet centered around fruit, and I've healed my diseases and thrived.

Perhaps you think two years is not enough, but how long should I wait to spread the word? I've escaped a misery that I though I'd suffer from for life. I don't want to wait to tell others.

Science, after all, tells people that they will never escape colitis, and that diet has nothing to do with it. Perhaps those people should wait for better science before they try something besides ineffective pills ridden with side effects?

I hope people can use my site as a resource to help themselves, but they're just as free to ignore if it they're waiting for solid science. But if they're waiting for science they won't even be on a raw diet.

I hope that answers your questions.





swimmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RusticBohemian,
>
>
>
> How long have you been raw? I'm sorry to be
> critical here but your article, and your site in
> general strike me as novice, yet you seem to make
> declarations as if have solved an issue once and
> for all. I'm disappointed because like you, I
> believe we need more science in the raw food web
> world.
>
> You're obviously a talented writer, and if you
> clean up all the inaccuracies, add some real
> science, and remove your opinions that are stated
> as facts, you can really help the community with
> your writing. It's ok to have inspirations from
> other writers, but I strongly suggest learning
> from as many sources as possible, including some
> of the long term raw foodists on this board.
>
> I applaud what your are trying to do, and would
> like to see you succeed in spreading the "raw
> word" but please be informed before you try to
> inform.