What concerns me is the limited and old fashioned nutrition RDA's that many raw vegans seem to see as nutritional law. We go to doctors, get our blood tests, get our positive results and then conclude we are getting adequate nutrition. But are we really getting adequate nutrition? Are the blood tests accurate? ls it just about fatty acids, vitamins and minerals? In our constantly changing environment, are the RDA's still relevent?

l think the nutritional testing is out of date. And l know most testing isn't accurate because we aren't testing for absorption, and even Don Tolman reports blood tests can be as high as 96% inaccurate. And l know that it isn't just about vitamins, minerals and fatty acids..because more important nutrients have been discovered since then, ie, phyto-nutrients (the disease fighters...the most important nutrient for a modern world, but there are no tests for them), the importance of oxygen via plants (we don't breath deeply enough, but raw green plant juices solves this problem), and hormones from plants that the body can convert into human hormones, but people don't get tested for hormone levels and become deficient. But doctors and nutritionists don't mention any of these things because their training is severely lacking and behind the times.

We still can't even test for most of the good things in plants, yet plants have the ability to stifle disease. So how can we think we know everything about nutrition and state that edequate amounts of vitamins, minerals and fatty acids is enough to keep away disease?

There is much more to the story than we have been told, and we shouldn't be holding blood tests as law. We come back with `so called' good blood results, but is this really enough to keep disease away?

l am of the strong belief that we need to supplement B12, drink lots of green sprout juices, take sea weeds, grasses, and algaes. l see this as the only way to truely have the best chance of getting the best levels of nutrients that we can because doctors and nutritionists are using old dated nutrition science and often use faulty blood testing procedures.

My message is: use the cronometer and blood tests as a basic guide. Don't use these things as nutritional law!

A good point. I personally do not trust those tests too much, though at times they prove useful. Additionally, the criteria what is the correct level (so called norm) of vitamins, minerals and what not is often very relative and questionable. Perhaps on the raw food diet, the human body has different requirements...

I do a B-12, D, Omegas, osteoperosis test once a year. I like to experiment with my diet and do the tests to get feedback to see what's working with the RFD.

Some blood tests are inaccurate whilst other blood tests can be a helpful indicator towards getting a basic view of overall health.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]

Yes, true, I've been trying cronometer lately, and it struck me how it would be foolish to take the readings as 'fact'. It all seemed quite arbitrary; for instance, when I compared the data for nutrients in various foods to some other nutritional websites, quite a lot of disparities came up. It's difficult to know who to trust for info, especially when so many food organisations are corrupt.

Also, even if you COULD trust it - there's still no way it can really be precise. For instance there can be no allowance made for individual absorbance, or the richness of the soil - or even whether the food is organic or not. Also, many raw methods of treating foods, which may affect availability of nutrients - eg juicing/soaking/sprouting/fermenting etc, are not accounted for.

Or, even simply the freshness of the food involved.. a fair bit of my veggies come straight out of my garden; they've been biodynamically grown and picked a few minutes before being served - I'm pretty sure they're more nutrient-rich than some wilted lettuce I may buy in the supermarket that's been sprayed with pesticides and transported from miles away. It all just seems an impossible task to try and fit it all into nice tidy little numbers.

But.. on saying all that, yes I do like the way it presents all the data so that you can easily flag up what you might be consistently low on..