to be honest i worry alot of the amount of sugar that i am starting to eat haha untill a week ago i had 1/2 cup berries a day that way it i was having heaps of tofu and beans and nuts haha well this should be interesting i wonder how long it will take to notice a change?

God said, "I have given you every plant with seeds on the face of the earth and every tree that has fruit with seeds. This will be your food." Genesis 1:29

pborst Wrote:

> The links between AGE build up and fruit intake
> were in the prior post. The nonsense aside. 3000
> calories per day is part of the problem. It will
> make most of us fat, sooner or later. I talked
> about healthy fats in prior posts also. That
> said, cancer cells feed more easily on higher
> fasting glucose levels relative to lower ones.
> So, if you want roll the dice, by all means. A
> high fruit diet if not balanced to lower the
> glycemic load will result in higher fasting and
> postprandial glucose levels than one which
> optimizies low glucose levels.


I surely wasn't suggesting everyone eat 3000 calories, but I will suggest that if I eat less than that on days I am quite active i will eventually find myself falling into an underweight BMI, and I'd rather not. I'm 6'0 142lbs. Everyone should obviously eat the right amount of calories for them, or a little less if they have weight to lose. 80/10/10 has nothing to do with total calories consumed, the fruit intake just looks high for many people because 811 itself enables a person to be naturally active/energetic, rather than lethargic (hey I used to be), leading to potentially higher caloric needs. Daily exercise is paramount in ensuring a healthy body and mind into old age, I'd much rather have the energy to want to do it than have to force myself.

IMO you're making an incorrect assumption that cancer can thrive in a healthy body consuming a healthy diet, doing regular exercise, and getting healthy amounts of sunshine and rest. I don't believe in the "hey it's just bad luck" or "it's all in the genes" theories anymore, I really believe it's all about our lifestyle decisions which directly affect and control our gene expression. There's an exciting body of research building around this in recent years.

You're also not acknowledging dietary fat's affect on blood glucose levels. Yes high-fat + high-fruit can cause issues, that's why the program recommends low fat. Without fat gunking up the blood, insulin, and cells and cell receptors, blood glucose can exit the blood quickly unimpeded. I suggest looking into studies which link high fat diets to diabetes for starters, they've been around for over 80 years.

Those AGE studies mentioned nothing about their controls. (how can I read more than the abstract?) They mentioned nothing of dietary fat intake, and seemed to assume that the vegetarians ate strictly fruit and vegetables and only cooked at low temperatures, but we all know that a person can technically call themselves vegetarian and eat a diet of entirely processed crap filled with HFCS, processed fats and sugars, dairy, who knows what else.

spekgirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> to be honest i worry alot of the amount of sugar
> that i am starting to eat haha untill a week ago i
> had 1/2 cup berries a day that way it i was having
> heaps of tofu and beans and nuts haha well this
> should be interesting i wonder how long it will
> take to notice a change?

Tofu and nuts are high in fat, so you may want to slowly decrease your fat level at a rate you're comfortable with. I know the feeling of dropping fat, and it can be tough!!

this past week i have been adding more fruit and having less nuts im finding im quiet hungry is this normal?
basically having a avocado salad morning and night and lots of fruit in the day.
sometimes a few nuts in the day too but my stomic is not full?

God said, "I have given you every plant with seeds on the face of the earth and every tree that has fruit with seeds. This will be your food." Genesis 1:29

Can you track your calories and see if you're getting enough? I'd eat more fruit if I was hungry; otherwise, you'll go for something fatty/less desireable/less optimal.

Great job no adding more fruit, though. Even if it takes you six months, that's better than going high-fruit low-fat in one day and feeling hungry, then giving up as if it was the high fruit that was the problem. Take your time if you need to.

spekgirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ahhhh okay um im not sure who is right i have read
> alot but im okay with eating 2 large green salads
> a day with avocado morning and night and then
> fruit all though the day ..... my only question is
> which should i focus more on fats(nuts avo ect) or
> fruits for a healthier life?
> thank you for everyones input too!!!


Yeah I agree with what Utopian Life said, fruit works better for breakfast and lunch (or maybe a green smoothie) because fruits provide lighter more easily available energy to us through our day, then for dinner some more fruit (if needed), then a huge salad with perhaps a little fats.

Ultimately none of us can tell you which diet is healthiest for you, you'll need to decide on your own. Give each way a try for a month or more and see how they make you feel.

I highly recommend the 80/10/10 book though, it just makes a ton of sense. Also The China Study is a great read.

Personally since going 811 I have way more energy, mental clarity, clearer skin, less oily skin and hair, candidiasis is gone, clearer eyes, sharper vision, nicer breath, perfect regularity, faster healing and clotting, fewer little aches and pains, faster workout recovery, better breathing, etc. I have experienced many other benefits since going raw but those above I attribute directly to 811.

And no, do NOT eat 3000 calories, I was just stating what I need to eat on my active days. Yesterday before breakfast I did 400 crunches, 100 pushups, and ran up and down 7 flights of stairs 4 times. Then later I went for a midday walk, in the evening took a bike ride, and after that prior to dinner lifted weights for 45 minutes. Prior to going 80/10/10 i did NOT have the energy for all that. As I said in the other thread a person does NOT need to be that active to try out 80/10/10, the nice thing about it is it gradually introduces the energy into your life making you seek out activity!

thanks alot for all this i think i am eating about 1600 so maybe not enough cause im still hungry so if i do it right i should add more fruit then and am i right in saying all fruit is good for me? even bananas and grapes all fruits?
im sorry im so not used to eating fruit haha like i said its just been 1/2 cup berries all day before this lol

oh and one more question.
everyone is saying a breakfast a lunch and a dinner well i snack.....
is this not good?
i eat 3-4 times in the day i dont really have a lunch i have breakfast and dinner but in the day i just have been eating fruit sometimes with in a hour of the last piece?

spekgirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> this past week i have been adding more fruit and
> having less nuts im finding im quiet hungry is
> this normal?
> basically having a avocado salad morning and night
> and lots of fruit in the day.
> sometimes a few nuts in the day too but my stomic
> is not full?


Yep likely not enough calories if you're getting hungry, try adding them up and checking your total. What can happen when first switching from dense fattier meals to fruits, is because fatty meals tend to be very compact compared to fresh fruit, and your stomach naturally shrinks over time, so at first when you eat a meal of fruit all of a sudden your stomach is like "woah, I'm full", then 2 hours later your body says "wait a minute, I didn't get enough calories". Your stomach does stretch for this after a couple weeks, but you may need to eat more frequent meals at first if this is the case and you're not getting enough cals.

Examples:
1/2 cup of hazelnuts = 425 calories (10% carbs, 8% protein, 82% fat)
4 medium bananas = 420 calories (93% carbs, 4% protein, 3% fat)
4 medium apples = 378 calories (95% carbs, 2% protein, 4% fat)

(protein looks low from fruits but it balances out nicely when we eat a lot of greens and veg. veg also has slightly higher fat generally so if we eat no fats at all our days typically are ~5% calories from fat, then a small amount if desired will bring it up around 10%)

Another common thing I think, is when people eat just fruit meals, it doesn't give that same "numb" feeling that a high fat meal does, and their hunger might be just an illusion, a craving for that feeling. In time you become aware of that phenomenon though and prefer the lightness of the fruit



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2009 01:09AM by rawpreston.

rawpreston Wrote:

> (protein looks low from fruits but it balances out
> nicely when we eat a lot of greens and veg. veg
> also has slightly higher fat generally so if we
> eat no fats at all our days typically are ~5%
> calories from fat, then a small amount if desired
> will bring it up around 10%)
>
> Another common thing I think, is when people eat
> just fruit meals, it doesn't give that same "numb"
> feeling that a high fat meal does, and their
> hunger might be just an illusion, a craving for
> that feeling. In time you become aware of that
> phenomenon though and prefer the lightness of the
> fruit



I agree with the last comment about desiring a full sensation and feeling hunger/emptiness at first, and just to give it time, that eventually the lightness will make you feel the glow all over!!! I love that feeling. It can easily be taken away by 100 calories of cooked food, unfortunately.

In an effort to fully clarify as best I can, while I don't disagree with RawPreston AT ALL on anything so far, I would say when he says eating "no fat at all," he means obvious or overt fats, like nuts, avocados, coconut. Because fat is present in all foods, just not in high amounts. So if you eat bananas, grapes, spinach, tomatoes, celery, mangoes, raspberries, and kale in one day, you'll probably be at 5% of calories from fat. Add 1/3 of an avocado and you might be at 10% calories from fat (depending on how many calories of fruit you ate).

So it's the issue of overt fats - high-fat foods - avocados, oils, coconut, nuts, seeds, some legumes, etc.

thank you both i need to keep snacking now 3-4 times cause i just cant stomic it all in one meal i dont think it will be any less benifisal?
but thank you for everything it helps alot.
i think i will just keep trying to eat less avo and nuts and more fruit i just feel a bit odd eating like 5 bananas a day but hey i like them so its a good thing

Utopian Life, I am in total agreement with you. Fruit is the best thing in the world.

I actually get excited and emotional over fruit sometimes because I love it so much. Like today at the supermarket when I was bringing home so many really dark grapes [dark grapes are the nicest tasting and wouldn't you know, also the highest antioxidants because you're evolved to like the highest nutrition the most). I could hardly contain my excitement!!! Well... a lot of people would think I'm crazy now but I think on this forum people understand [except maybe the fruit naysayers).

No, smaller meals are fine! Some of us eat a lot of bananas because we like them; they combine well and digest well, are higher in calories, are cheaper to buy in bulk, etc. But it's not necessary to eat a lot of nanners. Melon works well and has a high water content!

And again, don't worry about disagreements. We're all different and the high-fruit people probably have a bigger voice or higher number on this forum, but that doesn't mean that someone who doesn't do high fruit is less valid in their position. If they go against high fruit, however, and haven't tried it themselves, I'd wonder how they can attest to their position versus just what they've read, etc. No one should take these things personally. And you're free to try both ways, but just remember that the less fruit and vegetables you eat, the less nutrients you eat.

Also, you can look at pictures of high fruit eaters versus people who eat a more processed, dehydrated, and otherwise high-fat raw diet, and that will give you more clues to what you want to do.

Have any of you ACTUALLY SEEN Doug Graham lately...not a poster boy to say the least!!

really where can i see him?

Actually, yes, I did meet Doug Graham, just a few weeks ago.

One of the main reasons that I decided to seriously try 80/10/10 is because the man is truly HEALTHY looking. Some of the other attendees of the retreat I was at, who are also doing either 80/10/10 or similar low-fat/high fruit raw vegan eating styles, looked incredibly healthy (John Kohler, for instance). These are people who have been eating this way for YEARS - not weeks, not a few months, but YEARS, and who are healthy, strong, vibrant, energetic, and happy!

Live Well, Laugh Often, Love Much
We are all in this together!
Namasté

[images.google.com]

[images.google.com]

Doug's no spring chicken, I think he's 56 or 57, but I saw him speak last week in Seattle and was really impressed with his physique, posture, and poise. He has said that he started losing his hair at a youngish age, and when he was younger was always being taken as much older, something which led him to a healthier path.

If Kristina isn't absolutely glowing I don't know who is. She's been doing it 4 years:
[www.youtube.com]

Freelea looks pretty dang good: (many more member pics to browse there)
[arawconnection.ning.com]

I think Roger Haeske looks pretty good here at 41. The little guy who appears at 2:15 is also an 811'er.
[www.youtube.com]

Here's the little guy's channel in the above vid:
[www.youtube.com]

Here is Doug Graham's youtube channel, lots of vids up there, some are old
[www.youtube.com]

Here's DG speaking recently about candida in a 2-parter:
[www.youtube.com]
[www.youtube.com]

Here he is speaking last month @ Cafe Gratitude:
[www.youtube.com]

This girl basically follows an 80/10/10
[www.youtube.com]

And so does this guy:
[www.youtube.com]

wow thanks for that im going to check these out!

i think doug looks great for his age

that last vid of Dan , that was hilarious lol

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Wasn't my intent to have individual people posted and pointed out and judged.....

I think it's a suspect way of looking at things. Many people who are raw and 811 [or raw without too much fat that we wouldn't get naturally, however you want to put it), might only have done so after getting a chronic illness from modern living and using it as an avenue to become much better in health while the original problems may remain.

IMO taking a few poster boys is hardly even worth doing, I'm sure others could whip up the same for people who take Coke and bread every day and cook all their vegetable. Only if you take huge amounts of people and they went on the raw food without underlying problems can it work. This is plain for people to see in rural areas such as Asia and South America and places like that where eating raw-vegan is often the basic diet. The vast majority of those people are so beautiful and thin. And it's not genetic because when they come over here they become fat, get cardiovascular disease etc.

Many people do look fine and healthy on bad foods especially if they're under fifty, and many people on raw foods such as myself still have bad acne due to I don't know what it's due to... [permanent damage to skin/body from before, perhaps dust and dust mites, I really have no idea but I really think it has to be one of those two). Only if you took a LOT of people would it be worth doing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2009 03:03PM by SuperInfinity.

rawpreston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
>
> > The links between AGE build up and fruit intake
> > were in the prior post. The nonsense aside.
> 3000
> > calories per day is part of the problem. It
> will
> > make most of us fat, sooner or later. I talked
> > about healthy fats in prior posts also. That
> > said, cancer cells feed more easily on higher
> > fasting glucose levels relative to lower ones.
> > So, if you want roll the dice, by all means. A
> > high fruit diet if not balanced to lower the
> > glycemic load will result in higher fasting and
> > postprandial glucose levels than one which
> > optimizies low glucose levels.
>
>
> I surely wasn't suggesting everyone eat 3000
> calories, but I will suggest that if I eat less
> than that on days I am quite active i will
> eventually find myself falling into an underweight
> BMI, and I'd rather not. I'm 6'0 142lbs.
> Everyone should obviously eat the right amount of
> calories for them, or a little less if they have
> weight to lose. 80/10/10 has nothing to do with
> total calories consumed, the fruit intake just
> looks high for many people because 811 itself
> enables a person to be naturally active/energetic,
> rather than lethargic (hey I used to be), leading
> to potentially higher caloric needs. Daily
> exercise is paramount in ensuring a healthy body
> and mind into old age, I'd much rather have the
> energy to want to do it than have to force myself.
>
>
> IMO you're making an incorrect assumption that
> cancer can thrive in a healthy body consuming a
> healthy diet, doing regular exercise, and getting
> healthy amounts of sunshine and rest. I don't
> believe in the "hey it's just bad luck" or "it's
> all in the genes" theories anymore, I really
> believe it's all about our lifestyle decisions
> which directly affect and control our gene
> expression. There's an exciting body of research
> building around this in recent years.
>
> You're also not acknowledging dietary fat's affect
> on blood glucose levels. Yes high-fat +
> high-fruit can cause issues, that's why the
> program recommends low fat. Without fat gunking
> up the blood, insulin, and cells and cell
> receptors, blood glucose can exit the blood
> quickly unimpeded. I suggest looking into studies
> which link high fat diets to diabetes for
> starters, they've been around for over 80 years.
>
> Those AGE studies mentioned nothing about their
> controls. (how can I read more than the
> abstract?) They mentioned nothing of dietary fat
> intake, and seemed to assume that the vegetarians
> ate strictly fruit and vegetables and only cooked
> at low temperatures, but we all know that a person
> can technically call themselves vegetarian and eat
> a diet of entirely processed crap filled with
> HFCS, processed fats and sugars, dairy, who knows
> what else.

I agree that high fat is not healthy. And I'm not proposing a high fat diet in opposition to a high fruit diet. With respect to AGEs, I think you are right other things being equal a junk food vegetarian isn't going to be as healthy as a whole food vegetarian. However, I have not seen any data that indicates processed fructose is any more AGE forming than fructose in its native state. The abstracts I've looked tend to mark high consumption of fructose as contributing to prediabetes, insulin insensitivity and metabolic syndrom [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]. Also you asked where you could read something more than the abstract. If you go back to the abstract and press the red "Free PDF" button at the screen, you can read the whole article for free. It's apparent that fruit, not junk food was the main source of fructose in the vegetarians. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wasn't my intent to have individual people posted
> and pointed out and judged.....

SuperInfinity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it's a suspect way of looking at things.
<snip>
> IMO taking a few poster boys is hardly even worth
> doing, I'm sure others could whip up the same for
> people who take Coke and bread every day and cook
> all their vegetable. Only if you take huge amounts
> of people and they went on the raw food without
> underlying problems can it work. This is plain for
> people to see in rural areas such as Asia and
> South America and places like that where eating
> raw-vegan is often the basic diet. The vast
> majority of those people are so beautiful and
> thin. And it's not genetic because when they come
> over here they become fat, get cardiovascular
> disease etc.
>
> Many people do look fine and healthy on bad foods
> especially if they're under fifty, and many people
> on raw foods such as myself still have bad acne
> due to I don't know what it's due to... [permanent
> damage to skin/body from before, perhaps dust and
> dust mites, I really have no idea but I really
> think it has to be one of those two). Only if you
> took a LOT of people would it be worth doing.

You guys are right, I got a little carried away with the vids. I started to just post some with Doug for info but then posted some of my favorite 811ers. I certainly didnt mean for anyone to be judged. Just wanted to post some more 811 resources for people who were judging DG's looks. I think it's fair to consider his looks, he's been doing 811 for 25 years. But like Superinfinity said only if you took a LOT of people would it be worth doing. I certainly wasn't going to post anyone who I thought looked bad, of any diet.

Superinfinity, not so quick about assuming the vast majority of Asia are thin and beautiful. Actually as parts of the world become industrialized and westernized their diets begin resembling ours too (esp in cities), and they begin falling prey to all of our diseases as well, eating high-fat, high-meat diets. It's really pretty scary and why we need to keep on our paths and try to lead by example.

Between 1992 and 2002 the obesity rates in China rose 97%:
[news.bbc.co.uk]

pborst Wrote:

> I agree that high fat is not healthy. And I'm
> not proposing a high fat diet in opposition to a
> high fruit diet. With respect to AGEs, I think
> you are right other things being equal a junk food
> vegetarian isn't going to be as healthy as a whole
> food vegetarian. However, I have not seen any
> data that indicates processed fructose is any more
> AGE forming than fructose in its native state.
> The abstracts I've looked tend to mark high
> consumption of fructose as contributing to
> prediabetes, insulin insensitivity and metabolic
> syndrom
> [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
> lpos=16&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_
> ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDo
> cSum. Also you asked where you could read
> something more than the abstract. If you go back
> to the abstract and press the red "Free PDF"
> button at the screen, you can read the whole
> article for free. It's apparent that fruit, not
> junk food was the main source of fructose in the
> vegetarians.
> [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
> lpos=70&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_
> ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDo
> cSum


A study of 19 meat eaters vs 19 vegetarians. And their diets were self-reported via a survey. No control group. And the old case of causation vs correlation. How do we know that fruit was the primary factor in the higher AGE's? We don't. The authors infer it and would like us to also. Also the vegetarian group was 6 years older on average. I would much rather see a study of high-fruit vegetarians vs those consuming high-grain or high-fat, and with quite a few more than 19 people.

And the first study which says fructose fed to mice led to higher incidence of prediabetes and metaaolic syndrome, but in the first sentence it specifically mentions fructose as an added sweetener, not which naturally occurs in fruits, And I'd be willing to bet they fed the mice a white powder or a clear liquid of man-made fructose isolate versus whole fruits. Yes there are MANY studies showing how bad HFCS and other processed unnatural fructoses are, but we cannot then conclude that fruits are bad because they also contain fructose.

These studies aren't enough to scare me off of fruit, personally, when considering all of the other evidence of how bad a high-fat diet is. I would turn to cooked starches before eating high-fat again.

Speaking of fat, I see we agree that there is such a thing as too much fat, that's good. Where's the cutoff point then, what do you consider a healthy upper percentage of calories from fat? Personally I consider 25% to be high-fat. Like i've said it's VERY difficult to obtain our calories predominantly from greens and/or vegetables. It sounds noble but it's just not possible. A large % of a raw vegan's calories must either be coming from fat, or fruit.

I'd love to see a sample day of the diet you're consuming/suggesting. It's ok if you don't want to share it though. I again encourage people to closely examine their actual fat intake via cron-o-meter, fitday, nutridiary.

Let's look at an example in the 80/10/10 book, p.140.

Item Cals Fat Cals % Fat
------------------------------------------------------
Breakfast:
2 oranges (126cals, 6 Fat cals, 5% fat)
2 bananas (200calls, 6 fat cals, 3% fat)
1 T olive oil (120 cals, 120 fat cals, 100% fat)
2oz walnuts (371cals, 309 fat cals, 83% fat)
Breakfast total: (817 cals, 441 fat cals, 54% fat)

Lunch:
1 papaya (119cals, 4 fat cals, 3% fat)
4 bananas (420cals, 13 fat cals, 3% fat)
Lunch total: (539 cals, 16 fal cals, 3% fat)

Dinner:
20oz lettuce (96cals, 13 fat cals, 13% fat)
2 tomatoes (44cals, 4 fat cals, 9% fat)
10oz avocado (454cals, 344 fat cals, 75% fat)
1/4 cup sunflower seeds (205cals, 150 fat cals, 73% fat)
Dinner total: (799cals, 502 fat cals, 63% fat)

Day's total: 2155 calories, 959 fat cals, 45% calories from fat!

Even though this plan is "high fruit" (which have lower fat % than vegetables or greens), and what some might call a reasonable amount of fat, it still comes out at 45% calories from fat. The SAD is something like 35% or 40% from fat. Hmm.

What is the relevance of a six year age difference between vegetarians and omnivores? I guess I don't follow. No, there are no controls. It's not a randomized controlled trial and I agree it's a relatively small study. Still, the omnivores had a higher protein intake and the vegetarians had a much higher fruit and honey intake demonstrating a higher fructose loading which is correlated with greater AGE formation. Your right, it's not causation. The nature of this kind of research has to be in steps. And I respect very much your right not to be affected by one study. Still, I see it very differently. The higher AGE levels in this study are correlated with fruits and honey, not junk food.

I think maintaining low glycemic load and high nutrient load is the critical thing. I don't see it has high fat vs. high fruit. YMMV



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2009 05:21PM by pborst.

to clarify, the example day I posted above ^^ is not an 80/10/10 sample day, it's an example of how someone might be eating a LOT higher percentage fat than they realize. replace some of the fruit with veg, or more greens, and the fat % is even higher, especially because someone would probably eat more fat to get their calories for the day.

and I said it's not possible to get our calories predominantly from veg+greens, actually it probably is, if you're very sedentary. if someone thinks a sedentary life eating 25-75% calories from fat is healthier than an active life consuming the body's natural fuel, i kind of feel sorry for them.

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is the relevance of a six year age difference
> between vegetarians and omnivores? I guess I
> don't follow. No, there are no controls. It's
> not a randomized controlled trial and I agree it's
> a relatively small study. Still, the omnivores
> had a higher protein intake and the vegetarians
> had a much higher fruit and honey intake
> demonstrating a higher fructose loading which is
> correlated with greater AGE formation. Your
> right, it's not causation. The nature of this
> kind of research has to be in steps. And I
> respect very much your right not to be affected by
> one study. Still, I see it very differently.
> The higher AGE levels in this study are correlated
> with fruits and honey, not junk food.
>
> I think maintaining low glycemic load and high
> nutrient load is the critical thing. I don't see
> it has high fat vs. high fruit. YMMV

The vegetarians were 6 years, 20% older, than the meat-eaters, you don't think that could be a factor at all when considering advanced glycation endproducts, which are markers of accelerated aging? Who do you think has more AGE present, 20 year olds or 40 year olds? I dunno maybe age isn't a factor with AGEs but personally I would have preferred closer ages if they're trying to draw conclusions. The study is terrible quite frankly.

As I've said I don't find the glycemic load of fruit on a low-fat diet very worrisome. No fruit is high glycemic really, except dried fruits and juiced fruit. Not compared to sodas and processed manmade sugars, the things which really lead to diabetes. Based on what I've read I personally believe it's worse to eat "low glycemic" fruits and 25+% fat than it is to eat "high glycemic" fruit and 10% fat. It doesn't really matter though because it's not like 80/10/10 even mandates higher glycemic fruits like bananas, I often just eat your "low glycemic" fruits too, but higher glycemic fruits are more convenient (denser) and cheaper. And I assure you my nutrient load is plenty high. I asked you to suggest something I might be deficient in. Do you think getting 400% of DRI's is better than getting 250%? Keep in mind also that most of the DRI's are inflated to account for people with absorption issues, to cater to the meat and dairy industry, and for the majority of people who eat large amounts of anti-nutrients.

You still haven't indicated what percent fat you recommend. 10-15%? congratulations you're eating 80/10/10. 20%? 40%? post a day, please.

rawpreston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What is the relevance of a six year age
> difference
> > between vegetarians and omnivores? I guess I
> > don't follow. No, there are no controls.
> It's
> > not a randomized controlled trial and I agree
> it's
> > a relatively small study. Still, the omnivores
> > had a higher protein intake and the vegetarians
> > had a much higher fruit and honey intake
> > demonstrating a higher fructose loading which
> is
> > correlated with greater AGE formation. Your
> > right, it's not causation. The nature of this
> > kind of research has to be in steps. And I
> > respect very much your right not to be affected
> by
> > one study. Still, I see it very differently.
> > The higher AGE levels in this study are
> correlated
> > with fruits and honey, not junk food.
> >
> > I think maintaining low glycemic load and high
> > nutrient load is the critical thing. I don't
> see
> > it has high fat vs. high fruit. YMMV
>
> The vegetarians were 6 years, 20% older, than the
> meat-eaters, you don't think that could be a
> factor at all when considering advanced glycation
> endproducts, which are markers of accelerated
> aging? Who do you think has more AGE present, 20
> year olds or 40 year olds? I dunno maybe age
> isn't a factor with AGEs but personally I would
> have preferred closer ages if they're trying to
> draw conclusions. The study is terrible quite
> frankly.
>
> As I've said I don't find the glycemic load of
> fruit on a low-fat diet very worrisome. No fruit
> is high glycemic really, except dried fruits and
> juiced fruit. Not compared to sodas and processed
> manmade sugars, the things which really lead to
> diabetes. Based on what I've read I personally
> believe it's worse to eat "low glycemic" fruits
> and 25+% fat than it is to eat "high glycemic"
> fruit and 10% fat. It doesn't really matter
> though because it's not like 80/10/10 even
> mandates higher glycemic fruits like bananas, I
> often just eat your "low glycemic" fruits too, but
> higher glycemic fruits are more convenient
> (denser) and cheaper. And I assure you my
> nutrient load is plenty high. I asked you to
> suggest something I might be deficient in. Do you
> think getting 400% of DRI's is better than getting
> 250%? Keep in mind also that most of the DRI's
> are inflated to account for people with absorption
> issues, to cater to the meat and dairy industry,
> and for the majority of people who eat large
> amounts of anti-nutrients.
>
> You still haven't indicated what percent fat you
> recommend. 10-15%? congratulations you're eating
> 80/10/10. 20%? 40%? post a day, please.


Twenty percent older from age doesn't translate into 20 percent greater AGE exposure. The duration of the vegetarians in the study was about 7 years. What's critical is the food intake and what the mechanism is for AGE formation. I don't agree that the study is terrible. I find it insightful, though it's a small study to be sure.

Regarding fruits not being high glycemic, I guess relative to processed foods that's true. But the real question is what affect to fruits which are high sugar such as bananas and grapes do to circulating insulin and glucose relative to someone who was eating a raw vegan diet with a greater distribution of foods across nuts and seeds, legumes, fruits, vegetables and sprouted grains. I see a lower glycemic load in the latter which when accompanied with a higher nutrient load should be less risky in terms of both AGE formation and cancer etiology.

I guess I still don't buy the false premise of high fruit or high fat. Those aren't the only choices. Certainly neither Dr. Furhman or most CR advocates prescribe either one of those. I wouldn't characterize the Hippocrates Health Institute Diet or what Brian Clement proposes as either high fat or high fruit.

Regarding a fat percentage, I don't believe in one percentage but rather a range. I don't think there is anything magical about 10 percent fat content, notwithstanding you don't have be high fruit to be low fat. Rather, the mass of healthy lipids and essential fatty acids can be low or moderate but most likely not high.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2009 06:44PM by pborst.