Hello,
I would need some advice from experienced and conversant people on some issues I have. I would be very thankful.

I am raw 811rv for 7 months.I have limited finances and fruit availability. I am considering to base my raw lifestyle on mainly bananas, some kiwis, apples and much lettuce with some nuts.

Can such diet be sustained and safe for 2 years until I get enough money to afford organic produce and more variety?
If asians (even shaolin monks) can live on rice and vegetables for entire life, so can I get great health and athletic results on bananas and lettuce?

I read that bananas are on safe fruit list regarding pecticides, so shouldnt they cause any harm if I consume bananas in massive quantities and for prolonged period?

What is better-conventional bananas and all raw or nonorganic rice/organic vegetables and mostly cooked?

Regards,
Dan

No fruit is not a great thing to overdue. Put your self in a position that will allow to eat all organic if at all possible. You have to make a lifestyle change if you want to live a full, happy, healthy life. Organic rice and other grains are not that expensive, just cook them. You don't have to be a raw foodist just to stay healthy or survie the best you can. Sunflower seeds, flax and some other fatty acids are not to expensive either. I would eat more vegies than fruit even if nonorganic. Maybe you could work for a local farmers market on the weedends and get your food that way.

Dan,

Try to eat a greater variety of foods when you can. If you cannot do all raw for lack of funds, I would say, don't, but do as high raw as your wallet can manage. An all organic diet is optimal, IMO, but not always possible--it isn't for me, either. Check out the Dirty Dozen list from the Environmental Working Group:

[www.organic.org]

Fruits are an excellent source of calories, as I'm sure you know, and more easily utilized for energy production than fats. Some fats are essential to uptaking vitamins and other co-factors, so eating nuts is a good idea. Dark leafy greens are cheap and a good source of vital minerals, so don't forget about these. Eating as low fi as possible when raw can be cost-effective; it's the "gourmet" raw foods that break the bank! Good luck



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2011 10:03PM by Tamukha.

I would say that it is OK. Just make sure to not eat too many nuts, drink enough water and eat enough greens or juice some vegetables also. And very much consider getting your B12 checked. You can be scared all day long by people telling you you need to eat this or that, but the longer you do it, the more you realize your body will just want the fruits and vegetables. Trust the body, and be smart.

Yes, I have found that after 7 months of being raw cooked food dont seems appealing anymore, even steamed vegetables are terribly tasting.
I found that one person has lived on conventional produce for 7 years and has excellent health. So, probably some small pecticides in my bananas wont harm me.

I'm not sure if bananas are grown with that many pesticides? Just wondering because the ones in our garden dont seem to be prone to any kind of pest attack at all....I dont know about chemicals connected to the ripening process though...

I agree with Tamara, I'd vary your diet a bit. Some fresh fruit daily is a good thing. But in the amounts you are talking about, that's a lot of sugar and a lot of fructose. Fructose cannot be metabolized directly the way glucose can but has to be processed through the liver. Also, it can be converted into advanced glycation endproducts more readily than glucose when taken in excess internally even in raw form. Our bodies can make AGEs internally in addition to the AGEs we consume from browned or blacked foods we eat externally. Fructose when taken in excess can contribute to that AGE loading. Best consume low sugar fruits such as melons, berries, citrus fruits kiwis and apples. The occasional banana won't be a problem. I don't know that I would want to make them a staple though. Just a thought.

Paul

Danqi, I would just advise that you do buy only Organic nuts and seeds. Organic seeds - like sunflower seeds and whole brown sesame seeds - are not expensive; and in my experience, they have been crucial in allowing me to stay raw and healthy. Organic nuts are expensive, but you don't need many of them. One or two Organic brazil nuts a day (for the selenium) won't cost that much.

NONorganic nuts and seeds can cause severe problems for some people (like me, for instance), so beware!

Well, I usually agree with Paul on just about EVERYthing; but for myself at least, I find that eating lots of fruit doesn't seem to hurt at all - as far as I'm aware. If it did, I'd be in big trouble, since I have such a hard time eating GREENS. If I had to cut back on my fruit too, I'd have a pretty hard time of it! I've been eating lots of fruit everyday, including lots of bananas, for a very long time. In the course of a day though, I almost never eat JUST fruit. I eat nuts and seeds too, and also greens, but I can't eat greens every day. I guess we're all a little different.

As for Advanced Glycation Endproducts (AGEs), my understanding is that people who are hyperglycemic (including diabetics) have difficulty moving glucose from their blood into their cells, and are therefore prone to having much higher levels of glycosylated proteins that can be oxidized to form AGEs. But I'm skeptical of the notion that people with healthy, unclogged cells will have that same problem as a result of eating whole raw fruits (as opposed to consuming fructose as a sweetener.)

But I do agree that a good variety of foods is best!

Just my half cent worth.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2011 07:45AM by suncloud.

Same as suncloud, Im going to have to respectfully disagree with Paul. AGE's appear to be a problem with hyperglycemia. Which shouldn't be a problem with 80/10/10, however you could buy a blood glucose meter and check. Also fructose can difuse into the cell and dosen't require isulin, it can be metabolized easier and more directly than glucose. I have not read where it has to be processed by the liver.

Paul what would you have him eat to make up the calories if he is eating less fruit? Cooked starchy vegetables or more fat?

I would say all raw conventional is better than cooked organic.

WorkoutMan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Paul what would you have him eat to make up the
> calories if he is eating less fruit? Cooked
> starchy vegetables or more fat?
>
> I would say all raw conventional is better than
> cooked organic.

I have written on this before. I think that's a false choice. Putting the bulk of your calories in one area e.g. fruits, e.g. nuts is itself something of a false choice. When season food became scarce, early humans had to turn to other sources. I'm not 100 percent raw vegan (about 80 percent) so I'd get some of it from cooked soups. But if I wanted to go 100 percent raw, I would still limit my fruits to low sugar fruits (berries, melons, apples, kiwi, etc) and make up the difference in sprouted grains, legumes and vegetables (both starchy and non-starchy).

My main concern about fruit consumption and the 10 gram daily fructose limit originated from Paul McGlothin and Meredith Averill's The CR Way. They claim that the body converts fructose (from any source) to AGEs more readily than other carbohydrates. And that's in addition to AGEs consumed directly which is what we mostly know. Below is a transcript of what I asked Paul and Meridith on their forum from LivingtheCRWay.com. I don't observe the 10 gram limit personally. But I take their warning seriously. I think the other reason I don't buy high fruit consumption personally is Joel Fuhrman's recommendations to make vegetables, not fruits the basis of the diet (though he allows much more liberal fruit intake than McGlothin and Averill). Though a lot of the risks of high fruit consumption are easily addressed through practice (e.g. brushing your teeth???), I am still not convinced it is any more appropriate to get a high sugar raw vegan diet than it is to get a high fat one. AGEs is just one of the concerns, albeit an important one.

Paul


AGE Formation, Fructose & Fresh Fruit

Paul Borst
(21 posts) 22 Sep 2010, 08:22

Since AGE formation appears to require heat, dry heat, why do you recommend limiting fructose consumption in fresh fruit since they are obviously moist & juicy and room temperature or refrigerated? Is there any evidence that consuming fructose in fresh fruit contributes to AGEs or that the fruit has high AGE units themselves?

Thanks.

Also, am aware the fruits may pose a different risk if they are high glucose, but that's a different risk than what I am concerned about vis-a-vis fructose.
Edit Reply


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul McGlothin
Administrator
(321 posts) 26 Sep 2010, 05:28

Thanks for your question, Paul. There were two reasons why we recommend limiting fructose consumption:

1) Although AGE (advanced glycation end products) are formed by heat, they are also formed by chemical reactions in the body. Fructose is at least ten times more likely to form AGE than glucose, probably because it is not processed by insulin and just stays around until the liver can process it.

2) Optimal heart health – fructose, even small amounts, may play havoc with lipids. For starters, fructose is more likely to form triglycerides than glucose. Also if you use the VAP(Vertical Auto Profile) test to evaluate lipids, you may notice that even small amounts of fructose increase levels of highly atherogenic particles.



I hope this is helpful.


Paul

Thanks Paul. That's very helpful!

Definitely we do make our own AGEs from oxidated glycosylated proteins within our own bodies. "Advanced glycosylation end products" are irreversible, and they accumulate with age. They are a form of protein denaturation.

Still though, I don't think Mr. McGlothin really answered your question (and it was a great question!). He referred only to "fructose". My understanding is that, to date, fructose studies have focused on the concentrated, processed form of fructose as a sweetener. There have not been studies to confirm any increase in AGEs, triglycerides, or atherogenic particles as a result of consuming any given quantity of whole fruits.

It's kind of like finding a problem with white rice and then saying that brown rice will cause the same problem.

In a paper entitled Dietary Fructose and the Human Body, Kirsten Nunez reviews several fructose studies. She describes "dietary fructose" as follows: "Along with glucose, fructose is a natural component of fruits, berries, and vegetables. About 1/3 of total dietary fructose consumption comes from these natural sources. The remaining 2/3 of fructose derived from the diet can be found as an added sweetener in beverages and foods, such as soft drinks, candies, jams, sweetened fruit drinks, bakery products and syrups."

It's that 2/3 described above that these studies are concerned with. Study participants were given fructose solutions, not whole fruits.

In fact, in reference to one study on childhood obesity, Nunez writes, "An interesting observation was obtained through this study: while there was not a striking difference in total fructose intake in normal weight children as opposed to overweight children, there was a difference in the particular source of fructose. Overweight children consumed more fructose in the added, sweetener form in processed foods and soft drinks, as opposed to natural fructose from fruits and vegetables. This suggests that there is an association between the source of fructose and the increased incidence of LDL particle size. "

Results of another study reviewed in Nunez's paper suggest that "It would be ideal to consume fruit before eating a high glycemic index, starchy meal in order to lower postprandial glycemia".

There's a lot going on with a whole fruit!

As for triglycerides, the normal "reference range" for triglycerides is <150 (less than 150). Mine is 54.

I think these are great discussions. I wish there were more studies directed toward understanding the dietary function of whole unprocessed foods. Most studies seem to be confined to the search for components within foods, such as lycopene for reducing prostate cancer, or whatever.

Bananas are a staple in my life. They seem to be good for me as long as I exercise a lot to burn off all those calories. I'm a dancer so I really need them.

Thanks Suncloud! I agree that just focusing on fructose is a little reductionist for my taste. I don't observe their 10 gram fructose limit. But it is one of those things I keep an eye on. When you look at the whole picture, the net effect of fruit doesn't depend on just it's sugar (to wit, [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]. On the other hand, some small studies in Europe do show an increased intake of fruit may lead to increased AGE status. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] [www.biomed.cas.cz][www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]. Rawpreston and I went round and round on this. His main points were that the vegetarians were older (AGEs increase with age) [36 vs. 30 years], the studies were small [only 9 vegans, 25 other vegetarians and 19 omnivores]. All valid. I think where we agreed to disagree was that the studies limitations did not entirely invalidate it. It suggests to me that there is a real empirical question that has not been tested about the link (if any) between fruit consumption and AGE formation. Preston also pointed out that honey consumption was higher among the vegetarians. But the total amount was so low relative to the fruit, that I didn't buy that argument. Bottom line, the study is too small to make any changes in diet. But it does raise the question in my mind about the larger risk. There isn't much evidence one way or the other. And McGlothin's argument is based on a part of a food without taking into consideration the whole food, which I think is Suncloud's point. There isn't a lot of weight of evidence here. I'm being prudent on lowering my fruit intake just because I don't think a high sugar diet is any better than a high fat one.

Paul



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2011 06:06PM by pborst.

Hi Paul,

This is such an interesting subject! Thanks for all the great links!

When you talk about being prudent, I think that's very wise. I would probably go the exact same route if I didn't have this problem with greens (darn). But, in fact I do; and so it's a good thing for me that so far, fruit has been, really, a Godsend. Of course, just because I seem to be able to eat lots of fruit, doesn't mean everyone else should do the same; and I need to remember that!

A couple of comments on the links. The first link finds a reduction in AGEs resulting from intakes of citrus fruit extracts. That's of course a point in favor of citrus fruit; but to be fair, the "reductionist" door swings both ways! Extracts are not a whole food, just as fructose is not a whole food. But still, it's very interesting, and an indication that more studies would be helpful. Thanks so much for posting it!

The second, third and last links are all summaries of studies by the same study group, but the last link seems somewhat different because it includes vegans. In the abstract for that study, I didn't see any comment about the vegan results, but I did see another article that refers to (I think ?) the same study.

[inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com]

According to the author of the article, omnivores in the study had the lowest level of AGEs, but the vegans had lower fluorescent AGE levels than the lacto-ovo vegetarians (VLOs). This would be NOT be expected if the AGE levels were caused by fructose consumption, because the vegans in the study had considerably higher fructose intakes than the VLOs. In fact, these "vegans" consumed more honey, way more citrus fruits, almost twice as much fruit juices, and more fruits than the VLOs!

But, as noted above, the omnivores had the lowest level of AGEs.

So wow! Go figger! Whatever the case, the study was small, and who knows how many other unknown variables could have been involved. And of course, there were no raw vegans.

Could some fruits (like citrus) contain a protective factor that other fruits don't have?

(Wouldn't it be fun to be a researcher and study raw vegans?!!!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2011 01:27AM by suncloud.

Thanks Paul, it is an interesting topic. Although I eat alot of fruit still, and will continue, Ive often wondered about what is the optimal balance of food types.
Im still pretty skeptical that a raw fruit and veg diet would greatly contribute to AGE's in the body. I could understand a cooked food diet making alot of AGE's. But I guess the arguement is about fructose in the blood. Maybe the negative studies done on fructose were done on cooked fructose. Maybe these damaged molecules needed to be processed by the liver. It would be nice if more honest studdies were done on preventative health rather than making drugs.


Are McGlothin and Averill, low carb diet promoters?? Just wondering, cause even eating 15 servings of vegetables could put you over 10g of fructose!

Paul you seem to be fairly fond of Joel Fuhrmans information! Im not very familiar with him but I know he is a contemporary to Goldhammer, Ornish, McDougall, etc.. Maybe you could provide a brief summary of what his dietary ideas are. Not trying to be lazy, I usually hold your posts in high regard, even though I disagree at times.
Thanks, Workoutman

Suncloud,

Thank you. It would be fun to be a researcher indeed. I appreciate your link. It's interesting. I wasn't able to tease out the total fructose loading between the "vegan" (actually "bee"gans since they ate honey) from the table. And there were categories where the VLOs ate more fructose loading foods (e.g. apples). Although on the face of it, I think you are probably right that the fructose loading between the LVOs and the bee-guns probably resulted in a higher fructose loading in the latter. That said, the LVOs have both higher fruit consumption and also higher animal products known to contribute to AGE external formation. I never assumed that fructose was the only driver, just an important one amone raw vegans. However, I think in the bigger picture, the author confirms what I fear with high fruit consumption that other things being equal, fructose is more likely to form endogenous AGEs than glucose. And so, I want to pick my fruit carefully. Agree to disagree on this one!

Paul

Sounds good Paul!

I guess we're the raw food guinea pigs. We'll know more in maybe 60 years or so, when I'm 120 and you're not far behind.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2011 07:01PM by suncloud.