Im watching a vidio about paul nison. He says that too many bannas and fruit is not good. He said some bananas are fine but not 30. I have had 12 this morrning(which I think is fine). anyway paul said he ate just green vegetables for 6 months. to keep weight up how would you do this. My weight droped as soon as I ate a bit less and then excersised.


[www.veoh.com]#

Anyone can make a video about anything. I'd research further and talk to people who actually eat fruit and not a ton of fat before listening to this person's opinion, and that's all it is - opinion.

Hellokitty,

I generally respect Paul Nison, but everybody's got they somethin'. If he is saying specifically that, as a former UC and Chrohn's sufferer he does not recommend lots of bananas because they result in specific harm, that's different than just arbitrarily saying this or that. If your colon is OK on a dozen bananas, then that's what you should go by : )

Yeah 12 is just fine. You're doing really well HelloKitty.

I'm all for amounts of bananas that would shock people on SAD diets, but 30 is really pushing it though...

30 I would find too many for myself, but if I was hiking I could easily eat 20 a day.

Hellokitty,

Learn to trust and have confidence in your inner coach and let it be your guide. When you start listening for body signals it is difficult to tell the difference between your inner coach that is working in your best interest and static or "noise" caused by old addictions and habits. At first when you get a signal or message from your body ask yourself if the signal is for something good and healthy or is it static coming from an addiction to something unhealthy. Its kind of like a manual filtering that is needed at first. In my opinion you can trust signals like a desire for water or a desire for garden foods like bananas etc. As your body gets cleaner inside the messages from your inner coach get louder and clearer and the static fades away. So when it comes to something healthy like a banana try to sense what your body is feeling about bananas. Is there a positive feeling about bananas or a negative feeling ? Trust that and be comfortable that Paul is listening to his inner coach for what feels right for him.

It's good to get tips and suggestions and information from other sources. That's how we learn. But we eventually have to pool all the information and determine what works best for US as individuals. Let your body be your guide. If it works for you, don't mess with it. =)

*****************************
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson

12 bananas? they are very high in both calories and fructose. Fructose contributes to Advanced Glycation Endproducts (AGEs) which are linked to aging and disease. Several studies have indicated that studied vegetarian populations have higher AGE levels than the studie omnivores. Best to stay with low sugar fruits such as berries, melons, and citrus and keep your glycemic load and fructose intake low. To your health.

Pborst, with due respect, I eat 24-30 bananas a day if I have ripe ones and look younger than ever. Our bodies need fructose to function. Glycemic load has more to do with fat.

there seems to be 2 opinions in the raw food world: whether to go low or high glycemic - ie eat a diet high in fruit and low in fat (Doug Graham), or eat a diet low in fruit with (I guess) a little more fat, grains, and lots of sprouts (Gabriel Cousens, Brian Clements etc). The trouble is, deciding which camp you're gonna go with... both sides seem to have reasonable arguments and are determined their ideas are the right way to go... it's a toughie Personally, I like my fruit, so I try to keep my fat levels low and my greens high.

It's pretty easy to decide for me based on the health and looks of people who follow low-fat, high-fruit.

Ah, I see pborst is spreading Atkins, low-carb nonsense again. Little did pborst realise but most of those studies were actually funded by the "Atkins Research Society" or similar themselves.

The fact is that we were never evolved to take a high protein diet, protein is a dirty fuel, the body doesn't like using it as such. So while you may lose more weight on high-protein, you will effectively age faster.

Just because you may lose more weight with the same calories, that's not the focus of this place.

Pborst, I eat lots of bananas everyday. They're the mainstay of my diet. I also eat a lot of other sweet fruits too.
So,according to you, I should be aging and disease ridden. On the contrary, I've never felt better in my entire life.
I'm 46yrs and look 36. Less to some people. And I owe it all to sweet, juicy, mouthwatering fruits.

Pborst, can you stop writing about studies and tell us your own experiences with bananas and other sweet fruits?

Hi Hellokitty

This was discussed at length here several months ago, following Paul Nison's pronouncements about 'too many bananas', 'high fruit diets are dangerous' etc.

Here's an article that tackles the 'too many bananas' thing (you may find the articles preceding and following of interest too).

[debbietookrawforlife.blogspot.com]

SuperInfinity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah, I see pborst is spreading Atkins, low-carb
> nonsense again. Little did pborst realise but most
> of those studies were actually funded by the
> "Atkins Research Society" or similar themselves.
>
> The fact is that we were never evolved to take a
> high protein diet, protein is a dirty fuel, the
> body doesn't like using it as such. So while you
> may lose more weight on high-protein, you will
> effectively age faster.

Spreading Atkins... again? When did I do it the first time? Please again control yourself, stay on substance, refrain from personal attacks and support your position. Respect the groundrules that the owners of this site have asked us to agree to. And I will do the same.

With respect to your specific claims, I am Joel Fuhrman supporter, not Atkins. I don't eat meat but monitor PubMed and other sources to stay current about health evidence. Show me advocating low carb? Please. I advocate low AGE which is different than "low carb" because AGEs come from fructose more easily than glucose. Now to your other claim.

"Little did pborst realise but most of those studies were actually funded by the "Atkins Research Society" or similar themselves."

Since I didn't site original research but simply reported my understanding, how could you know how studies were funded when no references were supplied? Just smearing right? Ok. Here is my authority for my prior statement. Please prove either Atkins funded these Slovakian studies or apologize.

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
Advanced glycation end products and nutrition.Krajcovicová-Kudlácková M, Sebeková K, Schinzel R, Klvanová J.
Institute of Preventive and Clinical Medicine, Bratislava, Slovak Republic.

Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) may play an important adverse role in process of atherosclerosis, diabetes, aging and chronic renal failure. Levels of N(epsilon)-carboxymethyllysine and fluorescent AGE values were estimated in two nutritional population groups--alternative group (vegetarians--plant food, milk products, eggs) and traditional group (omnivorous subjects). Vegetarians have a significantly higher carboxymethyllysine content in plasma and fluorescent AGE values. Intake of proteins, lysine and monosaccharides as well as culinary treatment, consumption of food AGEs (mainly from technologically processed products) and the routes of Maillard reaction in organism are the substantial sources of plasma AGEs. Vegetarians consume less proteins and saccharides. Lysine intake is significantly reduced (low content in plant proteins). Subjects on alternative nutrition do not use high temperature for culinary treatment and consume low amount of technologically processed food. Fructation induced AGE fluorescence is greater as compared with that induced by glucose. It is due to higher participation of a more reactive acyclic form of fructose. Intake of vegetables and fruit with predominance of fructose is significantly higher in vegetarians. Comparison of nutrition and plasma AGEs in vegetarian and omnivorous groups shows that the higher intake of fructose in alternative nutrition of healthy subjects may cause an increase of AGE levels.

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Eur J Nutr. 2001 Dec;40(6):275-81. Links
Plasma levels of advanced glycation end products in healthy, long-term vegetarians and subjects on a western mixed diet.Sebeková K, Krajcoviová-Kudlácková M, Schinzel R, Faist V, Klvanová J, Heidland A.
Institute of Preventive and Clinical Medicine, Bratislava, Slovak Republic. sebekova@upkm.sk

BACKGROUND: Evidence indicates that food-derived Maillard's reaction products are absorbed and yet can be detected in the circulation. AIM OF THE STUDY: We postulated that consumption of the heat-treated food by omnivores could be reflected by higher plasma levels of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) in comparison with vegetarians, who in cooking (by keeping away from meat) use lower temperatures and less time for heating. METHODS: Plasma fluorescent AGEs (350/450 nm) and N(epsilon)-(carboxymethyl)lysine (CML, competitive ELISA) levels were investigated in 3 groups of healthy vegetarians (9 vegans-V, 19 lactoovo-vegetarians--VLO and 14 semi-vegetarians--VS) and compared with those of age-matched omnivores (O, n=19). Mean duration of vegetarian diet was V: 7.2 +/- 1.0,VLO: 8.2 +/- 0.8 and VS: 7.9 +/- 1.1 years. RESULTS: Both fluorescent AGE (O: 9.9 +/- 0.5; V: 10.8 +/- 0.7, LO: 13.1 +/- 0.8* and SV: 11.6 +/- 1.2 x 10(3) AU), and CML levels (O: 427.1 +/- 15.0,V: 514.8 +/- 24.6*, LO: 525.7 +/- 29.5**, SV: 492.6 +/- 18.0* ng/ml) were significantly lower in omnivores than in vegetarians. Plasma glucose, parameters of renal function (plasma concentration of creatinine and cystatin C, calculated glomerular filtration rate--GFR) as well as C-reactive protein levels were within the normal range and did not differ significantly between the groups. Thus, neither decline of kidney function nor inflammatory processes contributed to the rise in plasma AGEs. CONCLUSION: Enhanced plasma AGE levels in vegetarians in comparison to omnivores are herein presented for the first time. Mechanisms of AGE elevation and potential pathophysiological relevance of this finding are to be elucidated in prospective studies.

>
> Just because you may lose more weight with the
> same calories, that's not the focus of this place.

Never said it was. But McGlothlin and Averill in "Living the CR Way" point out the need to moderate fructose intake. I wasn't arguing lobster, beef and cheese. I was saying specifically tend to low sugar (fructose) fruits such as berries, melons, and citrus to avoid excessive AGE formation. This has nothing and I repeat nothing to do with Atkins. People like Walter Willett of Harvard, Joel Furhman author of Eat to Live and CR practioners such as Paul McGlothlin and Meredith Averill have all advised eating plant based diets, something Atkins never did but being sure to get the most from your diet. And that is something that this forum is about, enjoying better health and living longer.

Paul



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2009 03:44PM by pborst.

Just to follow up, Willet, Furhman, Averill and McGlothlin all advocate plant based diets and low sugar fruit consumption.

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pborst, with due respect, I eat 24-30 bananas a
> day if I have ripe ones and look younger than
> ever. Our bodies need fructose to function.
> Glycemic load has more to do with fat.


I'm glad you look young. As far as I know, there isn't an RDA for fructose. Is it the high fructose corn syrup that is making our kids fat? Too much sugar, particularly fructose is a mistake from a health standpoint. Fruit is much less nutrient dense than vegetables. The latter does not pose the same risks to human health from AGE formation that excessive high sugar fruit consumption does. Note: this is obviously more problematic for high sugar fruits than for more nutrient dense lower sugar fruits such as berries, melons and citrus.

12 bananas a day seems like a lot to me. Walter Willett from Harvard recommends no more than one serving of high sugar fruits, mostly tropical e.g. mangos, bananas, etc. per day. I love fruit, just not an excessive amount of high fructose, high sugar, high calorie fruit.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2009 04:20PM by pborst.

brian1cs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pborst, I eat lots of bananas everyday. They're
> the mainstay of my diet. I also eat a lot of other
> sweet fruits too.
> So,according to you, I should be aging and disease
> ridden. On the contrary, I've never felt better in
> my entire life.
> I'm 46yrs and look 36. Less to some people. And I
> owe it all to sweet, juicy, mouthwatering fruits.
>
> Pborst, can you stop writing about studies and
> tell us your own experiences with bananas and
> other sweet fruits?

I'm glad you are healthy. I hope you stay that way. Time will tell.

With respect to what I write, here's an idea. You write what you like and I will write what I like. When I want to relay my personal experiences, I will do so. Fair.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2009 04:19PM by pborst.

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spreading Atkins... again? When did I do it the
> first time? Please again control yourself, stay
> on substance, refrain from personal attacks and
> support your position. Respect the groundrules
> that the owners of this site have asked us to
> agree to. And I will do the same.
>

pborst, what you've got to realise is that we're not all buying into the latest theory "science" has come up with regarding diet, much of this funding comes from taxpayers as well. The more theories they can come up with the more work they appear to have done.

All of what you're talking about is in my view pseudoscience. You're not "in" on anything new. In the end they'll find out that on a perfectly raw diet the fructose actually does good.

You're the one trying to terrorise someone into not taking fruits. That is NOT what this site is about. See how I'm stating that IN MY OPINION it's pseudoscience?

You might have said "certain studies think this or that", not put it down like a blanket thing because many people that come here are in a very vulnerable situation and don't know as much as you or me about this.

> With respect to your specific claims, I am Joel
> Fuhrman supporter, not Atkins. I don't eat meat
> but monitor PubMed and other sources to stay
> current about health evidence. Show me
> advocating low carb? Please. I advocate low
> AGE which is different than "low carb" because
> AGEs come from fructose more easily than glucose.
>

Okay good to see that you're not advocating low carb, a huge amount do. Low fructose is better, but still not right.

> Since I didn't site original research but simply
> reported my understanding, how could you know how
> studies were funded when no references were
> supplied? Just smearing right? Ok. Here is my
> authority for my prior statement. Please prove
> either Atkins funded these Slovakian studies or
> apologize.
>

I don't know why you're posting the second study as it doesn't mention fructose once, it says omnivores do better than vegetarians who heat their food or something? Effectively arguing against vegetarianism on a vegetarian site.

The first one may not have been funded by Atkins' proponents DIRECTLY, however the whole idea of AGEs being so bad for you may have been and isn't discussed at all.

> Never said it was. But McGlothlin and Averill in
> "Living the CR Way" point out the need to moderate
> fructose intake. I wasn't arguing lobster, beef
> and cheese. I was saying specifically tend to low
> sugar (fructose) fruits such as berries, melons,
> and citrus to avoid excessive AGE formation.
> This has nothing and I repeat nothing to do with
> Atkins. People like Walter Willett of Harvard,
> Joel Furhman author of Eat to Live and CR
> practioners such as Paul McGlothlin and Meredith
> Averill have all advised eating plant based diets,
> something Atkins never did but being sure to get
> the most from your diet. And that is something
> that this forum is about, enjoying better health
> and living longer.
>

That's true, however people are free to choose their way of eating raw. This message board isn't about subscribing to various theories or scare-tactics about food out there. The idea of fructose as being inherently bad is just as much hooey as glucose or carbs or fat for that matter being inherently bad.

> With respect to what I write, here's an idea. You write what you like and I > will write what I like. When I want to relay my personal experiences, I will > do so. Fair.

Sorry pborst, but it doesn't really work like that. For example people may be cautioned about taking too much peanuts or seeds as you can take an awful lot of calories that way, that's pretty well established. What YOU'RE trying to say is just pseudoscience and the latest theory to come around the bend.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2009 04:32PM by SuperInfinity.

SuperInfinity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
>
> pborst, what you've got to realise is that we're
> not all buying into the latest theory mainstream
> "science" has come up with regarding diet.
>
> All of what you're talking about is in my view
> pseudoscience. You're not "in" on anything new. In
> the end they'll find out that on a perfectly raw
> diet the fructose actually does good.
>
> You're the one trying to terrorise someone into
> not taking fruits. That is NOT what this site is
> about. See how I'm stating that IN MY OPINION it's
> pseudoscience?
>


So much for staying in control and responding to substance. So now, I'm a terrorist. Again, do you ever listen to yourself. Can you just stay factual and leave the histrionics behind? Please. Let's show more light and less heat. If you have a study that contradicts my understanding, that would be useful. The pejoratives aren't.

> You might have said "certain studies think this or
> that", not put it down like a blanket thing
> because many people that come here are in a very
> vulnerable situation and don't know as much as you
> or me about this.
>

It's not for you tell me how to interpret the weight of evidence I read. If I see a trend or a convergence of evidence, I will call it like I see it. What would be helpful from you is to spend less time demonizing me and more time giving thought to the issues presented.
> > >
> Okay good to see that you're not advocating low
> carb, a huge amount do. Low fructose is better,
> but still not right.

Ok, a little more care on what is written and less on reading into. Thanks. Not an apology, but that's ok.

>
> > Since I didn't site original research but
> simply
> > reported my understanding, how could you know
> how
> > studies were funded when no references were
> > supplied? Just smearing right? Ok. Here is
> my
> > authority for my prior statement. Please prove
> > either Atkins funded these Slovakian studies or
> > apologize.
> >
>
> I don't know why you're posting the second study
> as it doesn't mention fructose once, it says
> omnivores do better than vegetarians who heat
> their food or something? Effectively arguing
> against vegetarianism on a vegetarian site.
>
> The first one may not have been funded by Atkins'
> proponents DIRECTLY, however the whole idea of
> AGEs being so bad for you may have been and isn't
> discussed at all.

The two studies are from the same authors. The second study establishes fructose as the cause of the results of the first study. And you concede you have no proof Atkins financed this study but to save face are not responsible enough to apologize for your smear but rather add another smear with more namecalling me a terrorist instead of more informative feedback.
>
> > Never said it was. But McGlothlin and Averill
> in
> > "Living the CR Way" point out the need to
> moderate
> > fructose intake. I wasn't arguing lobster,
> beef
> > and cheese. I was saying specifically tend to
> low
> > sugar (fructose) fruits such as berries,
> melons,
> > and citrus to avoid excessive AGE formation.
> > This has nothing and I repeat nothing to do
> with
> > Atkins. People like Walter Willett of
> Harvard,
> > Joel Furhman author of Eat to Live and CR
> > practioners such as Paul McGlothlin and
> Meredith
> > Averill have all advised eating plant based
> diets,
> > something Atkins never did but being sure to
> get
> > the most from your diet. And that is
> something
> > that this forum is about, enjoying better
> health
> > and living longer.
> >
>
> That's true, however people are free to choose
> their way of eating raw. This message board isn't
> about subscribing to various theories or
> scare-tactics about food out there. The idea of
> fructose as being inherently bad is just as much
> hooey as glucose or carbs or fat for that matter
> being inherently bad.
If you insist on commenting on my position given your poor record to date, at least take the time to accurately state what I'm relaying. Noone ever said fructose was inherently bad, merely that it's intake needs to be moderated the same as many nutrients, think fats needed in small amounts but too much. the dose is the poison.

Please try to give more thought to your posts and present your own information instead of mischacterizing and attacking me for reasons I still do not understand.

We are having a discussion on whether high banana intake is healthy or not. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from having a banana. I'm just saying that I have read materials that give me pause when someone is talking 12 to 30 bananas a day. If you have other information, Superinfinity, I'd be glad to look at it. Let's spend more time talking about fruit consumption and it's health implications and less time about each other's motives. Thanks.

Paul



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2009 04:48PM by pborst.

There is a big difference between the fructose used in this research and regular fruit. The main thing these studies are looking at high fructose corn syrup. Corn doesn't really have fructose unless chemically altered via artificial enzymatic processes to convert glucose into fructose.

Its funny how one a take a highly specific piece of research and incorrectly generalize its findings to say that "fruit is bad"

Shame on whoever's thinking led to conclude that fruit is bad based on this research.

Bryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is a big difference between the fructose
> used in this research and regular fruit. The main
> thing these studies are looking at high fructose
> corn syrup. Corn doesn't really have fructose
> unless chemically altered via artificial enzymatic
> processes to convert glucose into fructose.
>
> Its funny how one a take a highly specific piece
> of research and incorrectly generalize its
> findings to say that "fruit is bad"
>
> Shame on whoever's thinking led to conclude that
> fruit is bad based on this research.

"Subjects on alternative nutrition do not use high temperature for culinary treatment and consume low amount of technologically processed food. Fructation induced AGE fluorescence is greater as compared with that induced by glucose. It is due to higher participation of a more reactive acyclic form of fructose. Intake of vegetables and fruit with predominance of fructose is significantly higher in vegetarians".

The authors of the study attributed the higher AGE content in the subjects to fruit, not processed foods. Agree with you that one study is not definitive but can be suggestive. Regarding "fruit is bad", I think, Bryan, if you look at my posts, I've said nothing of the kind. Merely, that too much of a particular type of fruit could be problematic over time. If you see it differently, I understand. I think the best thing to do is lay out the information and let people decide for themselves. I know for me more than 1 banana a day is out of the question. YMMV.

Paul

pborst, as hard as it may be to believe for you, what are you doing is following a religion. It's the religion of science.

Science can do great things and has come a long way in some areas. For example, the electronics revolution allows us to use computers, watch tv, etc. It's wonderful.

However when it comes to nutrition and medicine, scientific progress is pretty much like the level of space colonization we have achieved since the moon landing... not great.

You even say that it's not for you to say what research is good or bad or to comment on it.... so if it's written up then it MUST be true? Because science said it was true?

You may feel like you're some sort of intellectual and a knowledgeable, scientific person by posting these studies and encouraging us to post ones back to kind of "counter" your ones. But not everyone buys into the idea that the studies are worth something, these particular type of studies are in my view not even worth the memory they're stored on.

SuperInfinity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst, as hard as it may be to believe for you,
> what are you doing is following a religion. It's
> the religion of science.
>
> Science can do great things and has come a long
> way in some areas. For example, the electronics
> revolution allows us to use computers, watch tv,
> etc. It's wonderful.
>
> However when it comes to nutrition and medicine,
> scientific progress is pretty much like the level
> of space colonization we have achieved since the
> moon landing... not great.
>

I can't say I agree. First, that I'm practicing some type of religion (again, we seem to be unable to move off of motives and on to substance) and second that scientific achievement in the fields of medicine has not produced much. Tell it to the people who would be polio victims but for Jonas Salk's vaccine. Tell it to the millions of people who lived that would have died from pathogens but for water treatment or people who are alive because of Fleming and penicillin.

I agree with the general proposition we could be eating a lot better, but is that failing science or us or a broken health care system?


> You even say that it's not for you to say what
> research is good or bad or to comment on it.... so
> if it's written up then it MUST be true? Because
> science said it was true?
>
> You may feel like you're some sort of intellectual
> and a knowledgeable, scientific person by posting
> these studies and encouraging us to post ones back
> to kind of "counter" your ones. But not everyone
> buys into the idea that the studies are worth
> something, these particular type of studies are in
> my view not even worth the memory they're stored
> on.

I guess if you cannot comment substantively on the merits or weaknesses of a piece of research than all research must be bad unless it agrees with your point of view. I've tried repeatedly to get us back on topic and see if we put the soap opera personal attacks on hold while we talk to each other like adults. Alas, they continue. I do believe I will move on and let you browbeat the next dissenting voice whose path you may cross.

I'm not arguing with Pborst, per se, but I think many of the high fruit low fat raw fooders have tried or transitioned with the high fat, processed raw way of living and have found it sub-optimal. Just as an omnivore who's never been vegan for a good length of time can't attest to how they would feel as a vegan, a high fat raw fooder who has never tried high fruit, low fat (and all the other processed gunk out of their diet) can't attest to how they would feel on high fruit.

For me, I'd rather have energy and age well and be fit, so I choose high fruit, low fat. High fat diets are associated with many diseases, and this is studied in people who average 35-40% of calories from fat. Imagine how much worse it is for the 60-80% of calories from high fat raw fooders.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2009 06:49PM by Utopian Life.

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not arguing with Pborst, per se, but I think
> many of the high fruit low fat raw fooders have
> tried or transitioned with the high fat, processed
> raw way of living and have found it sub-optimal.
> Just as an omnivore who's never been vegan for a
> good length of time can't attest to how they would
> feel as a vegan, a high fat raw fooder who has
> never tried high fruit, low fat (and all the other
> processed gunk out of their diet) can't attest to
> how they would feel on high fruit.
>
> For me, I'd rather have energy and age well and be
> fit, so I choose high fruit, low fat. High fat
> diets are associated with many diseases, and this
> is studied in people who average 35-40% of
> calories from fat. Imagine how much worse it is
> for the 60-80% of calories from high fat raw
> fooders.

Utopian,

Glad our discussion isn't personal. It's a nice change on this thread. I credit you for presenting your view intelligently and in a very mature manner. It does you credit! I think I understand the cause of confusion and would like to briefly restate my thinking, having said I would move on and then not done so, my bad. Utopian, I agree with you entirely that high fat, gourmet, processed raw food is probably not optimal. It certainly is the most nutrient dense. As I said in an earlier post on this thread, I very much believe in the "nutritarian" tradition that Joel Fuhrman has proposed. Most of our intake should be green vegetables, ... not fruits and not nuts/seeds or grains. they are without doubt the most nutrient rich food group in the world and one of the least expensive. If you eat 25 bananas, how many greens are you eating, how many could you have eaten. Noone will pretend a banana has the same cancer fighting potential as kale, collards, spinach, or bok choy. The facts are just not there. There comes a time you must draw the line! Veggies, not fruits, not nuts, not grains are the most healthful mainstay of an optimal diet. k... gone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2009 07:29PM by pborst.

I don't think anyone wants you to leave, but I have a question in response to your question (which I will answer, I promise!).....how many calories in greens can you possibly eat in a day? I think fruit has great nutrition and perfect fatty acid ratios. I also love my greens, but their calories are quite lacking and I need a nutrient-dense and calorie-dense diet. I guess if you don't exericse or move very much or want your body to go into starvation mode, maybe low-fat, low-fruit, high greens would work?

Here is examples of what I eat:
I go by how i feel. If I want lots of greens, I eat them. If not, I know I'll want them as soon as my body needs them. I'm in touch with what I need.

Yesterday I had about 26 bananas, 8 c. spinach, 1 lb. cherries, 40 oz. orange juice, 2 c. strawberries, and 2 c. peaches, 2 c. raspberries and 5 c. tomatoes (local, yay!!)

Today I had so far 24 bananas, 4 c. spinach, 2 c. kale (plus I juiced the stalks), 3 c. tomatoes (local). I will have something else later, not sure what.


A few prior days (this is from Gone Raw, where I post sometimes what I eat

8 mangoes
8 c. strawberries (yum, got organic shipment!!)
6 bananas
32 oz. orange juice
2 zucchini
2 c. basil
6 c. or so cherry & yellow tomatoes
3 c. spinach


6 c. cherries
3 c. nectarines
9 c. blueberries
2 c. strawberries
26 bananas
10 c. spinach
Later I'm going to have 4 c. local tomatoes and some celery and a cucumber


6 c. local blueberries
2 c. strawberries
18 bananas
6 mangoes
4 c. apricots (local too!!! yay.)

Also will have a salad with spinach, kale, tomato, cucumber, and a celery-fresh herb dressing (no fat).


2 c. strawberries
8 c. mangoes
about 8 bananas
2 c. honeydew and cantelope mixed
3 c. pineapple
guacamole (regular, with avocado, jalapeno, cilantro, lime, tomatoes, and I also added shredded kale - yum! - not sure on amounts in cups exactly)
2 heads of romaine


16 bananas
2 c. strawberries
8 c. blueberries
5 c. cherries
4 c. cherry tomatoes
6 c. romaine
6 c. chard



I'm doing my best to do some local and in-season produce, as well as I get organic delivery, so I have one thing in bulk sometimes. I am 5'4, 110-115 lb., by the way, and yes, I fit it all in. My body is worth it. My salads usually fit in a huge salad-spinner bowl.

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think anyone wants you to leave, but I
> have a question in response to your question
> (which I will answer, I promise!).....how many
> calories in greens can you possibly eat in a day?
> I think fruit has great nutrition and perfect
> fatty acid ratios. I also love my greens, but
> their calories are quite lacking and I need a
> nutrient-dense and calorie-dense diet. I guess if
> you don't exericse or move very much or want your
> body to go into starvation mode, maybe low-fat,
> low-fruit, high greens would work?
>
> Here is examples of what I eat:
> I go by how i feel. If I want lots of greens, I
> eat them. If not, I know I'll want them as soon
> as my body needs them. I'm in touch with what I
> need.
>
> Yesterday I had about 26 bananas, 8 c. spinach, 1
> lb. cherries, 40 oz. orange juice, 2 c.
> strawberries, and 2 c. peaches, 2 c. raspberries
> and 5 c. tomatoes (local, yay!!)
>
> Today I had so far 24 bananas, 4 c. spinach, 2 c.
> kale (plus I juiced the stalks), 3 c. tomatoes
> (local). I will have something else later, not
> sure what.
>
>
> A few prior days (this is from Gone Raw, where I
> post sometimes what I eat
>
> 8 mangoes
> 8 c. strawberries (yum, got organic shipment!!)
> 6 bananas
> 32 oz. orange juice
> 2 zucchini
> 2 c. basil
> 6 c. or so cherry & yellow tomatoes
> 3 c. spinach
>
>
> 6 c. cherries
> 3 c. nectarines
> 9 c. blueberries
> 2 c. strawberries
> 26 bananas
> 10 c. spinach
> Later I'm going to have 4 c. local tomatoes and
> some celery and a cucumber
>
>
> 6 c. local blueberries
> 2 c. strawberries
> 18 bananas
> 6 mangoes
> 4 c. apricots (local too!!! yay.)
>
> Also will have a salad with spinach, kale, tomato,
> cucumber, and a celery-fresh herb dressing (no
> fat).
>
>
> 2 c. strawberries
> 8 c. mangoes
> about 8 bananas
> 2 c. honeydew and cantelope mixed
> 3 c. pineapple
> guacamole (regular, with avocado, jalapeno,
> cilantro, lime, tomatoes, and I also added
> shredded kale - yum! - not sure on amounts in cups
> exactly)
> 2 heads of romaine
>
>
> 16 bananas
> 2 c. strawberries
> 8 c. blueberries
> 5 c. cherries
> 4 c. cherry tomatoes
> 6 c. romaine
> 6 c. chard
>
>
>
> I'm doing my best to do some local and in-season
> produce, as well as I get organic delivery, so I
> have one thing in bulk sometimes. I am 5'4,
> 110-115 lb., by the way, and yes, I fit it all in.
> My body is worth it. My salads usually fit in a
> huge salad-spinner bowl.

Utopian,

thank you. This is the discussion I wanted very much at the start of this thread. Obviously, you feel great and it's a huge improvement over where you were before. I note that you are eating already a great many low sugar high nutrient fruits which are undoubtedly adding to your health.

How many calories can greens add? Could I or you become calorie deficient by eating more greens and less bananas? I guess it depends on what you offset or make it up with. 1 table spoon of flax seeds is equal to 1 banana with Omega 3s that the banana doesn't have. The greens themselves are going to be 200-300 calories, maybe more if you follow Fuhrman's guidelines with all of the phytochemicals that go along with it. the rest... sea vegetables, what Brendan Brazier (vegan triathalon performer) refers to as pseudograins, quinoa, amaranth, buckwheat, wild rice, sprouted or cooked as your preference dictates. Legumes? Bean sprouts? 70 calories and 7 grams of protein per cup. A banana is on average 100 calories and 1 gram of protein. Lentil sprouts are inexpensive, nutrient rich and a great mainstay for a nutrient rich salad.

Is 25 bananas sustainable? What happens to your electrolytes? Too much potassium? Where does your sodium come from on those meal plans? We don't need much sodium, but we still need some. 200-300 milligrams or more. Ezekial bread and your golden.

The main point is that 25 bananas is a lot of potassium. You're still here. But too much of any mineral can be a problem. Hyperkalemia [en.wikipedia.org] (a big word for too much potassium) could be a real threat on such a meal plan. AGEs which could take time to develop are long term. Short term, I'd be more concerned about my electrolyte balance. A couple of bananas shouldn't be a problem but 25? Your call.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2009 08:05PM by pborst.

OH, yeah, I'm keeping on eating this way. You bet! Grains are acid-forming and non-whole-foods, as they are cooked and/or dehydrated. Legumes are acid-forming as well.

All fruits have the perfect ratio of fatty acids, so I don't have the imbalance that you might have of omega 3s to 6s or vice versa. I don't have to worry about things like that.

Tomatoes, cucumbers, spinach, melons, celery all have sodium. Perfectly fit for humans. Unlike sea vegetables. We are land animals.

I typically get about 60-65 g. of protein a day, and this is mostly absorbed, unlike a person who eats an acid-forming, inflammation-producing, and calcium-depleting diet. That's 20 or so more grams than I need. Besides, our bodies need amino acids, not PROTEIN.

By the way, maybe I should add what my cooked vegan diet prior was:

breakfast - fruit, maybe a decaf soy latte
lunch - salad of some sort (very large, many leafy greens, maybe some sea vegs), also a fresh green juice daily
dinner - 3 lb. or so of greens, maybe some sweet potatoes, probably some carrots. Steamed, no or little oil. Maybe some grains or legumes but the greens made up most of the diet.

This diet was obviously healthy to a person looking at it from a view of the SAD diet. And I felt well. HOWEVER, I feel even more fabulous now and my skin is a world of difference. Our skin is our largest organ - reminder!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2009 08:21PM by Utopian Life.