I’m blessed to be part of the raw food diet revolution, a health movement that started long before I was born. The raw food diet emphasizes eating all or most food uncooked to preserve enzymes and nutrients in the food. My first book The Raw Life has influenced many people to make the decision to give the raw food diet a try. Almost ten years have passed since I published The Raw Life, and the raw food movement is flourishing. More people are writing books about eating raw foods, people are sharing their stories on the Internet about how the raw food diet has helped them, and restaurants continue to add more raw food options to their menus. Even with the loads of new books about the raw food diet recently written, people often send me messages thanking me for The Raw Life, informing me about how much it influenced them to “go raw.” It is very encouraging to know a book I wrote has helped change so many people’s lives, and I believe helped save a few as well.

As excellent as the raw food diet is to one’s health, it’s not all it could be. I’ve seen a big problem developing since becoming involved in the raw food movement, and it continues to worsen as the popularity of the movement grows. There is division, confusion and disagreement about the best path to eating healthy while on a raw food diet. I learned that the split decisions within the health movement are nothing new. Health writers have disagreed about what remedies are truly helpful and which ones are dangerous trends that will hopefully pass. In the beginning, the raw food diet seemed different to me. It appeared so straightforward when I first learned about it. It was hard to foresee that people could have different views about eating so simply. As I continued on my health journey, I accepted that there will be many differences within the raw movement and I had to find what was best.

When I first became involved in teaching the raw food diet, my message was simple: eat raw fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds; as much as you want, anytime you want. As long as it’s raw, you will be fine. I’ve learned a great deal over the years and now have a very different outlook. I continue to evolve my message as I discover what has been proven to work.

I keep changing, and change is good. Because I have an open mind, I continue to grow and enhance my message. This has led me to discover some key components to healthy eating that many health teachers today are missing. These key components are the basis of The Daylight Diet.

It is common knowledge that the quality of food is vital to our superior health. Eating fruits and vegetables raw, ripe, fresh and organic is ideal in terms of quality. However, an important point often not discussed is that it’s not just the quality of food that matters, but it's also extremely important how we eat and when we eat. It truly bewilders me that even with this unbelievable, simplistic information I teach and reveal, a number of people will still refuse to change their eating habits. You will never achieve the highest level of health eating a raw food diet the way many of the teachers are suggesting. Even more disturbing is that people make idols out of the teachers who teach misleading messages.

I understand gluttony well. For most of my life, prior to my revelation, I too was a glutton. However, unlike the majority, I became wise, obedient and disciplined. I stepped back from feeding that addiction. I remember Fred Bisci revealing to me a long time ago that one of the keys to eating healthy was to eat very little and not focus on the temporary pleasure food brings. I’ll never forget what he said, “When you find as much pleasure in not eating as you do eating, you have overcome the addiction.” I know some people who force themselves to not overindulge and they are not happy. They miss the pleasure of food too much. They would rather live with that pain from overindulgence instead of taking away the temporary pleasure. Once you understand how eating less is better for your health, it makes it more enjoyable to not consume as much.

I have experienced how stepping back makes it much easier to see the full picture. When you are caught in the daily cycle of giving in to addictions, it appears as a matrix. It’s almost impossible to see what’s really happening. I have since discovered that practicing temperance while eating will rid most health issues and rejuvenate your whole body. Your goal should be to reduce the amount of meals you consume and reduce the amount of food in those meals, while making sure you are consuming the highest quality food. But the key to success is you must enjoy eating less! It shouldn’t be a daily struggle. I can attest that it may not be easy at first, but you must change your thinking along with your diet if you want to be successful.

Without changing any food in your diet, stop eating later in the day! You will get better sleep, have better digestion, slow down the aging process, have more energy and feel wonderful. Stop eating at nighttime and experience for yourself the great results.

>Without changing any food in your diet, stop eating later in the day!<

Excellent advice, Paul. Whenever I do this I feel SO much better. Tonya Zavasta recommends this, as well. In fact, she stops eating in the early or mid-afternoon most days. After a certain point, it's not WHAT we eat, but what we DON'T eat that determines our health. ;-)

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

Good principles, although these have in fact been around for quite some time in various teachings.

For example, The Essene Gospel of Peace - whatever people 'believe' about it (or not) is, at least, an excellent book of dietary instruction.

Whether one believes the instructions to come from writings thousands of years old, or simply from the pen of Szekeley some 70 years ago, the EGOP demonstrates that the concept of eating in the daylight hours only is nothing new.

EGOP tells us to eat twice a day only (ideally once). If there are to be two meals, these should be at noon and sunset, ie no eating after dark.

It also instructs us not to be pigs, basically, and, ideally, eat what most people would consider to be a very small amount of food.

So, there really is nothing new under the sun.

Anyone who's interested in purchasing a copy of EGOP can find it on Amazon Used and New for next to nothing.

As regards 'divisiveness' in the raw food movement, it's really only when some raw foodists start saying other raw foodists are doomed and inevitably headed for failure and worse because they have too much fruit, too little fruit, too much fat, and/or start 'banning' certain foods, eg raw sprouted grains, pulses etc etc that it all gets a bit depressing.

Far better to celebrate the diversity, and to feel happy that there are so many different ways of enjoying a raw food diet.

As for 'idols', sure, it's a pity when people start worshipping the man rather than the message. On the other hand, the disadvantages of this are probably equalled if not outweighed by the net effect of the publicity/interest in the raw food diet generated by these people, and the fact that there does seem to be a leader to suit so many interests/personality types, eg we have the sporty, the whacky, the 'spiritual', 'the cheffy', the 'mumsy', etc.

I don't claim it's new but far too many people miss the important message especially raw fooders who think they can eat anytime they want because it's raw. I've seen too many people have bad health because of this so I'm doing my part to bring more light to the issue. Thank you both for your great comments.

'Far better to celebrate the diversity, and to feel happy that there are so many different ways of enjoying a raw food diet. '


Well said Debbie.

------------------------------------------------



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2009 06:11PM by suncloud.

debbietook,

" . . . there does seem to be a leader to suit so many interests/personality types, eg we have the sporty, the whacky, the 'spiritual', 'the cheffy', the 'mumsy', etc."

I laughed SO HARD at that--great way to put it!

Paul,

No real disagreements, although I have to say I'd like to know more about the adverse affects of "overeating" on raw food. I know eating too much fatty food can make some people lethargic, and that eating too much fruit can make others foggy-witted, but I have never heard of a dedicated raw foodist having digestive problems, clinical insomnia, or ennervation in the long-term. Quite to the contrary! These are all symptomatic of a non-raw diet, typically. Further, a raw diet of whatever kind one intuits is best for oneself through trial and error seems to remedy these symptoms. Or so I've always heard. Is there a silent army of sick, superfast-aging, draggy-bottomed raw foodists no one's ever heard of? Anyone?

In my case, the earlier I stop eating during the day, the better I feel.

And the less I eat overall, the better I feel - as long as I allow myself a full range of raw foods.

If I don't allow myself the full range of raw foods, I have a much harder time with trying to eat less. I like when I eat less.

I don't eat the full range of raw foods everyday. I've recently discovered that I can digest greens much easier if I don't eat them on the same day as nuts/seeds. So I'm now having a "fruit, greens, and sprouted grain day", and then a "fruit and nuts/seeds day". Avo fits in on either day.

In addition, regular intermittent fasting and exercise has been very beneficial for me.

I spent many years attempting to avoid certain raw foods like nuts/seeds/sprouted grains/seaweeds/etc. For me, those restrictions just led to binge-eating and overall misery; and I sometimes see that happening with others here on the forum.

I don't expect everyone to eat exactly the way I eat. But there may be some who find they're happier and healthier with this (or a similar) approach, rather than attempting to conform to a current trend. If so, they deserve our full support.

It's possibly helpful to experiment with many different types of raw food diets before settling on one that feels right, and can be followed consistently.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2009 08:11PM by suncloud.

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the awesome article!

What do you think about the claims made by Ann Wigmore and David Wolfe. They both say that they only need about 3 hours of sleep per day. How much do you sleep? How about Bryan Clement? Is it just a rumor that Ann Wigmore never slept?

To be honest I think sleep is very important and I can get by on 3 or 4 hours but I do not think that is healthy for me. I feel by best when I sleep 8 hours. I love to get to sleep at 9 or 10 pm so I'm up very early in the morning. The less I eat the less sleep I need but other factors like work and travel affect sleeping times also. There is no amount for everyone. I have heard Ann Wigmore got a little sleep. She only ate small amounts of blended foods. She was in excellent health. If she saw what people were promoting today in the raw movement should would go crazy. Dr. Fred Bisci eats like she did, small amounts and mostly blended salads. He only sleeps 3 or 4 hours a night. I know that for sure. If you are eating very little and all the factors help you, sleeping less is fine, however if you are consistently stimulated because you are taking coffee, cacao or some other drug and getting less sleep because of that i don't think that is healthy.

Thank you Paul, I appreciate your reply! I want to be like Fred Bisci and only sleep 3 hours a night. I can't do it yet but in the future I will get there. I have alot of work to do and I can't finish it all if I'm sleeping 8 hours every day!

A good night sleep does a world of good for me I go to bed early and wake up before the break of dawn.

I feel my best on this routine but if I travel it throws me off for a few days until i get adjusted.

Rest is one of the most important rechargers .
I would find it hard to sleep 3 or 4 hours I do know there are plenty of people who can do that but me I need at least 7.5 good hours plus.

As for eating during daylight that is when I am up so I function best that way as Debbie mentioned about the The Essene Gospel of Peace the writer Dr.Z as he was called in the old days said the best time to eat your first meal was high noon or anytime after with only 2 meals a day.
If i am really busy and hungry I will eat 3 but 4 meals would be very rare and to me 2 is ideal.

Cherimoya,

Love Peace and Happiness,

not eating before dark is not so new of a subject. Even non raw foodists like Bob Green recomends not to eat in the evening in order to give the body a rest. When I am transitioning to eating raw foods I allow myself to eat whenever and what ever because the stress of change is difficult but when eating raw we evolve and change as we listen to what our bodies tell us and according to the season.

I really enjoyed Tanya Zavastas book on Quantum eating and in that she suggests dry fasting in the evening and early morning as bennificial for the body. Her book is so good.

how do you deal with your hunger in the evening?

Mr dc, thr body will become trained so to speak concerning hunger in the evening. From what I have heard from many people the evening time is the most tempting time to overendulge in wrong foods and most people say they are tempted to eat non raw foods in the evening. I know that when I eat later in the evening I wake up not feeling so rested and unsatisfied. Experiment yourself and see what your body tells you, if it is nnot good for you than eat in the evening.

I feel the best after 6pm when I stop eating after 3pm. That was a surprise to me, I learn to enjoy not eating, the body feels so good.

Hi Paul,
When eating very little, how does one know which raw foods to opt for the best nutritional value? Can you get complete nutrition from lets say for example 800 cals a day? Do you supplement? I loved your post by the way.


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

Paul,

What do you mean by overindulging? Raw foods have a lot of bulk and very few calories unless one is eating a lot of fat. On the SAD diet, I was eating in excess of 3500 calories a day. Nowadays, I am challenged to eat 1500 calories.

How do you define overeating or overindulging? A person eating just fruits and salads would be very hard pressed to get the recommended 2000 calories a day that is in most nutritionist's recommendation.

For example, how much food for a man of your size (and could you give us your weight) would be too much food?

What do you mean by overindulging?

** I mean consistently eating much more food then we need. I do not count calories because no two calories are the same and a healthy person eating a healthy diet could thrive on little. Each person is different so do what works best for you.

I know what works best for me. But the recommending 2000 calories a day I don't buy into? Who recommends it? I sure don't. I think there is no one number for everyone but people are known to consume more then they did and the excess can cause issues.

I am 140, 5'7 and eat about 2 or 3 meals a day. On a sad diet over 15 years ago I was about 155. I do fine eating very little. I am very active, on a two meal a day system. I’ve did 100-mile bike rides and felt fine.

Professor Arnold Ehret author of The Mucusless Diet Healing System and other great books, gives great examples in his book of how active and strong a person can be with less food if they are clean inside. Ehret conducted many long-term fasting experiments, some over 50 days, performing great hikes of many long days and other strengthen exercises right after the fasts just to prove that if done with wisdom a person can have more energy, strength and endurance eating far less then they are used to.

Dr. Fred Bisci has been eating a two-meal a day system for over 40 years explains why the concept of eating many meals throughout the day is mistakenly believed to be best but it is not. He states the three errors people make.

Dr. Stanly bass another long time health author, is in his 90’s claims one of the secrets to his advanced age is only frugal eating never eating more that a few meals a day. For years he lived on one meal a day. And I even know a man 107 years old who is in excellent shape that claims eating very little is the key to his great health.

The classic example is Luigi Cornaro (1464-1566),
who was near death at 40, and lived to be 102 on Calorie
Restriction....didn't even eat a healthy diet....just a small
amount of it. How much better we can do today knowing what we
know....WY
[en.wikipedia.org]

WY,

I believe Cornaro abstained from meat much of the time, and ate a lot of produce. Importantly, he took only wine as a drink; in the early Renaissance, wine was a truly fermented drink(like kombucha), low in alcohol and safer than well water. As he enetered middle age, when most Italian merchant or noble class men would start to succumb to "gout" and arthersclerosis[the rich ate too much meat!], Signore Cornaro started to eat only a few small meals, and to eat much of his fruits and vegetables raw,like the peasants, to the consternation of his family; they were convinced that uncooked plant foods possessed all manner of disease-causing effluents and fauna. Ah, the preposterous superstitions of the Dark Ages! Anyway, as you mention, this led to his enjoying increasing intellectual and physical vigor as he aged. There was some story about his gleefully winning endurance tourneys into his nineties, but that could be apocryphal. So Luigi Cornaro may be Paul Nison's best argument yet!

Thanks for mentioning him, Wheatgrass Yogi!

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ........to the consternation of his family;
> they were convinced that uncooked plant foods
> possessed all manner of disease-causing effluents
> and fauna.
I remember, from somewhere, that it was his
family that actually did him in. They kept insisting
that he increase his food intake....finally he relented
....fell ill....and soon died.

Maybe, but on the other hand, he was 102! Better to give in to well-meaning family than the Plague!

Luigi Cornaro's story has always intrigued me. Here's an excerpt from Stanley Bass's website about what he ate:

Luigi ate a little meat; he ate an egg yolk; he had panado, which was a vegetable soup with a little tomato; he had grape juice; and he had bread. He used to dip the bread in the soup. That was his diet. That's all he ate. He didn't want to eat fish because it didn't agree with him, and he didn't eat chicken. He ate a little meat. On that diet, which we natural nutritionists would call low quality, he lived to 102.

I've always wondered what would have happened had he lived on our quality of food. He might have gone on to 150.

His temporary downfall, apparently, was adding just two ounces more of food, to please his worried relatives:

Then his relatives ganged up on him. They said, "Luigi, you're an old man, you have to keep up your strength. You have to start eating more. Luigi, you gotta eat more!" They annoyed him so much with their advice that just to shut them up he agreed to increase his food. He increased it from twelve to fourteen ounces - that's only four tablespoons of food more. Immediately Luigi became violently ill; within three days he had a high fever. Within seven days he was near death.

So he went back to his former diet of 12 oz. of unremarkable, semi-nutritious food:

So he said, "I'm through with this. I'm going to go back to my old diet." Within a few days he became well again, and he lived in a state of unbroken health and happiness until the age of 102. When he died, he died in an ideal way. He was in his rocking chair. He closed his eyes, took a nap, and didn't wake up.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2009 03:26PM by kwan.

Hm, Kwan, there's a bit of poetic license in this account--I was casting it like a James Agee play as I read it--but the basic "meat"[that's for Dr. Bass] is right : )

Thanks for posting!

I was just talking to a young woman who just graduated nutrition school and she told me the best diet for the human body is one that is regular every day. I thought that was interesting. If you look at your diet you may find we have our usual things we enjoy to eat and perhaps on the weekends we endulge in something different.
I think the hardest thing for me to overcome is the concept to eat to live rather than live to eat, for so long in my life I would live to eat. But I guess thats getting a bit off topic

Paul on your recent interview you had a post about I have a question that also relates here -----> I'm very curious when I hear you say you eat less or very little and in turn say all your nutritional requirements are made. How can this be or rather, how do you determine this?? You are not the only one who states this also.

To me with fruits and veggies and eating less than 1,500 for example is very difficult to get all the vitamins/mineral by the typical USDA charts. Unless you are using other methods of determining?? Please share.

I'm just curious by these statements you and others seem to make often and would like to understand your point of view if you would share. If anyone would share for that matter.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for myself, but am sure curious about you guys ;O)

IT's very simple. I monitor my levels by taking blood test and I am not low in anything. That is the only real way to tell.

Great advice, for sure! One of my biggest downfalls is night snacking. I'm taking baby steps to improve it, though. I've stopped watching TV at night (a big snack trigger) and turned to reading instead (which doesn't trigger as much snacking for me). I've also given up eating chocolate (raw or not) at night because I noticed it keeps me awake. Those are two major steps for me, but I'm still working on stopping to eat a few hours before bedtime (the best I can do for now).

Tam

Pampam--
I think it depends on how well detoxified and cleaned out someone is. You can absorb a lot of nutrients from very little food if your body is relatively free of toxins and your digestive tract is really clean and healthy.

Paul--
Really interesting about the self-monitoring.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]