im new to eating raw vegan and hearing alot of 80/10/10
does anyone have experience on this or maybe a smaple days eating that can give me a start at it?

Not really. The very idea that humans would have to eat a certain ratio of everything is very flawed IMO.

Eat whatever raw fruit you feel like eating. You're perfectly evolved for that. The vitamin b12 is lost from agriculture yeah... but you can replenish that. Simple.

Why would you ever follow anyone's heart and desires over your own, what your body wants??? The only exception is the processed/cooked food, other than that your body knows what's best. It's how you're perfectly evolved to be!!! Your ancestors didn't listen to anyone and were not evolved to do poorly on their diet, the exact opposite!!!

Yes it's the way to go, in my opinion. I recommend you get the book: buy, borrow, beg, or library it, then give it a shot for a month and see how you feel.

80/10/10 isn't some crazy made-up ratio that takes a lot of work to adhere to. It can be summed up in just a few sentences: Eat all the fruit you care for to meet your caloric needs. Eat lots of greens and vegetables. Eat only small amounts of fats.

That's it.

As long as you don't eat animal products or protein powders or tons of nuts, then protein naturally stays under 10% of calories. It's just the fat that must be watched out for. Most raw fooders eat shocking amounts of fat without realizing it. (you can use cron-o-meter, fitday, or nutridiary to check out the carb/pro/fat ratios of your meals, or days)

The fact is, a raw fooder's calories will either come primarily from fat, or primarily from fruit. Those are the only 2 options. Nuts are not a protein food they're primarily fat. Greens and vegetables don't have enough calories to sustain us. They should however of course be eaten in abundance. Show me a raw fooder who tells you fruit is bad, and I'll show you a raw fooder who eats a lot of fat (or cooked starches).

A sample day might look like this. (this is about 2200 calories)
Breakfast, 2 lbs of grapes.
Lunch, 10 bananas.
Dinner: a green smoothie (3/4 head of romaine + 3 bananas), then big salad with whatever veg I have and the remainder of the romaine head. Maybe toss 1/2 avocado into the salad or 1oz of nuts.

It might look like a lot of fruit, and it is, IF one is consuming lots of fat too. Hence the need to give it an extended chance, not just go by how we feel of 1 meal of fruit and say "it's not for me".

You can transition by simply increasing the amount of fruit you eat, and reducing the amount of fats.

There are a lot of naysayers of 80/10/10. Some see it as too dogmatic, some have fears about fruit, some don't think that it resonates with them. But I highly doubt any of them have read the book and given it a shot for at least a month adhering 100%. If one makes the switch immediately with no transition, the benefits can be felt within the first week.

There was a recent thread here arguing for and against 80/10/10. Check it out :
[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

See also 80/10/10 forums:
[www.vegsource.com] (questions answered daily by Doug Graham)
[arawconnection.ning.com] ("30 bananas a day"

Can't recommend the book enough, it goes into all the hows and whys. After I read it I immediately read it again. It has 28 days of sample meal plans, and it covers all the fears and misconceptions one might have about a low-fat high-fruit high-greens high-veg diet that is 80/10/10.

Good luck in your journey

Hey rawpreston, does the 80/10/10 book advocate green smoothies? I thought DG didn't advocate blending foods. I lean a lot toward this way of eating, but I haven't read the book nor am I willing to give up green smoothies . I drink two a day sometimes, and I always follow proper food combining.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2009 05:18AM by rufio.

Yes he has recipes for them in the book like the one I mentioned, just bananas and romaine. Plenty of blended items in the recipes, for salad dressings and such too. Blending is somewhat natural because we're getting all the fiber and it's basically like we just chewed it really well. We're still eating the 'whole food' even though it's not 'whole' anymore lol. The only downside might be oxidation, I'm not sure how bad that is but if it's ok with DG it's ok with me. I love my blendtec

I always worry when people say 'your body knows instinctively what it needs'.

The evidence of one's own eyes, when glancing down the street, would indicate otherwise

Once a month my body very strongly tells me that i NEED chardonnay and chocolate lol

I think 80-10-10 is probably a very good way to go.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2009 06:43AM by flipperjan.

Flipperjan, I know what you mean. I think that old cliche 'listen to your body' does work, but only when the body is (relatively) clean and the food (one believes) the body is asking for is raw, unadulterated food. Otherwise, it's safe to assume it's not the body talking - it's the conditioned (and devious) psyche!

Spekgirl, I think 80/10/10 is one of several good sorts of raw food diet. I follow a high-fruit diet myself, but also believe people can be successfully raw on other sorts of raw food diet.

thank you there is alot of opinions out there but i have herd good things about this one.
are you able to eat dried fruit on this plan?
and how many nuts would be enough a day is 30g too much do yu think?
im also guessing larabars will have to go???

flipperjan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always worry when people say 'your body knows
> instinctively what it needs'.
>
> The evidence of one's own eyes, when glancing down
> the street, would indicate otherwise
>
> Once a month my body very strongly tells me that i
> NEED chardonnay and chocolate lol
>
> I think 80-10-10 is probably a very good way to
> go.

Flipperjan, I said EXCEPT for cooked foods, prepared foods, or foods modified in any way. I personally take peanuts sometimes, but I know they are not ideal with how *I* eat them because in the wild I would have to crack open every shell or eat the shell as well [the latter being most likely). So I would quit them a lot sooner.

People do NOT get fat when eating raw foods in their natural state, so you can hide your smirk. Your body knows what it wants. It's so simple it's ludicrous. Sorry but I've tried to explain this soo, sooo many times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2009 04:17PM by SuperInfinity.

spekgirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> im new to eating raw vegan and hearing alot of
> 80/10/10
> does anyone have experience on this or maybe a
> smaple days eating that can give me a start at it?


At a minimum, this way of living dilutes critical nutrients relative to a vegetable based raw vegan diet. Fruits have more sugar and less phytochemicals relative to vegetables which can't be a good main stay given how cancer cells thrive on glucose. Glucose promotes insulin which is an aging marker. Fruits are fine but should be low sugar, low glycemic load, means berries, melons, citrus, limited bananas grapes, mangos, and anything else that satisfies the sweet tooth. The sweet tooth kills. Fructose prevalent in tropical fruits and hybrid fruits increases advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs think acrylamides) and therefore is counterproductive to long life and not the way to go. Finding vegetables you like with low sugar fruits and adding variety with healthy fats (flax seeds, chia seeds, walnuts) and legumes (soy bean, lentils, mung beans) is a better alternative.

Paul



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2009 06:26PM by pborst.

spekgirl,

Welcome! I'm with flipperjan on this. Your body has no idea what it wants until it has been trained to know good from bad, and this doesn't happen automatically(regardless of some people's wondrous experiences), although it can happen quickly. Once you have attuned your body to eating fresh, ripe fruits, vegetables, seeds, and nuts, it will learn to recognize these as essential, and everything else as neutral/undesirable. 80/10/10 is a great means to this because it breaks down to a simple ratio what the average human would eat in nature given no nurturing from the SAD way of living. It's a great way to "correct" the palate. Good luck : )

Making fruits the mainstay of your diet is a huge mistake. The SAD diet is a poor baseline. If you want excellence, vegetables, particularly cruciferous vegetables, not fruits should be the mainstay. Your call.

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Fruits have more sugar and less
> phytochemicals relative to vegetables which can't
> be a good main stay given how cancer cells thrive
> on glucose.

pborst are you serious??? Fruits have less phytochemicals??? You're not right, fruits have more phytochemicals than vegetables and the only thing you find better in vegetables are minerals.

And Tamukha I disagree. Your body *does* know good from bad *except* if foods aren't in their natural state.

I do agree with this statement fully though: " Once you have attuned your body to eating fresh, ripe fruits, vegetables, seeds, and nuts, it will learn to recognize these as essential, and everything else as neutral/undesirable. "

SuperInfinity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Fruits have more sugar and less
> > phytochemicals relative to vegetables which
> can't
> > be a good main stay given how cancer cells
> thrive
> > on glucose.
>
> pborst are you serious??? Fruits have less
> phytochemicals??? You're not right, fruits have
> more phytochemicals than vegetables and the only
> thing you find better in vegetables are minerals.
>
>
> And Tamukha I disagree. Your body *does* know good
> from bad *except* if foods aren't in their natural
> state.
>
> I do agree with this statement fully though: "
> Once you have attuned your body to eating fresh,
> ripe fruits, vegetables, seeds, and nuts, it will
> learn to recognize these as essential, and
> everything else as neutral/undesirable. "


Yes, I'm serious. Brocoli, kale, collards, watercress, beatgreens, turnip greens, mustard greens, watercress, bok choy, are more nutrient rich on a per calorie basis than bananas, grapes and mangos. You can fill a human stomach, anyones, bigger or smaller with only so much. That makes it zero sum. More fruit less meat, ok more fruit less vegetables, not ok. I'm discussing the latter. Most people following 80-10-10 or otherwise consuming a fruit based diet could dismiss this as a strawman. Don't. There's only so much room in the stomach. Bananas vs. kale/collards. ? Oversimplifies the issue. But makes the point. What rents your stomach? How well does it protect you? Where is the data?

Paul

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I'm serious. Brocoli, kale, collards,
> watercress, beatgreens, turnip greens, mustard
> greens, watercress, bok choy, are more nutrient
> rich on a per calorie basis than bananas, grapes
> and mangos. You can fill a human stomach,
> anyones, bigger or smaller with only so much.
> That makes it zero sum. More fruit less meat, ok
> more fruit less vegetables, not ok. I'm
> discussing the latter. Most people following
> 80-10-10 or otherwise consuming a fruit based diet
> could dismiss this as a strawman. Don't.
> There's only so much room in the stomach.
> Bananas vs. kale/collards. ? Oversimplifies the
> issue. But makes the point. What rents your
> stomach? How well does it protect you? Where is
> the data?
>
> Paul

pborst, I'm not sure if I understand you. Are you arguing that there is a physical limit to the amount you can pass through your stomach and have it still performing optimally? I doubt it. Most fruit is water anyway, look at how small raisins are compared to grapes. I can definitely understand (although disagree with as regards everything but minerals) the nutrient per calorie idea.

I think that most people don't use their stomachs/intestines enough, food gets lodged there for days at a time. This is especially true for thin people who aren't raw, and might be partly why many people overeat on the bad foods. I'm pretty sure that he idea of eating such a big volume of food for the same energy is what turns many people off raw foods.

IMO there's no reason to assume that you're using your stomach too little or too much by eating fruit. Strawman's argument or not, I think the burden of proof lies on you if you want to make that argument.

Also bananas vs. kale/collards? What about carrots vs blueberries? pborst to be honest I find your introduction of that argument a bit bizarre, not trying to disrespect its possible merits, just how you threw it in there like it's a known issue.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2009 07:33PM by SuperInfinity.

Pborst has implied that a high fruit diet will increase the chance of cancer.

Spekgirl, please do not be alarmed by this.

Rather than argue this one here, I hope that anyone who has ever been concerned at the various scare stories circulating about high-fruit diets will look at my article here:

[debbietookrawforlife.blogspot.com]

This is the third part of my 'Fool for Fruit' trilogy, and the most relevant part for this thread, as it discusses the high fruit diet with regard to cancer.

'The sweet tooth' doesn't kill. Human beings have a naturally sweet tooth.

But PROCESSED/REFINED sugar certainly contributes to illness and premature death.

SuperInfinity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes, I'm serious. Brocoli, kale, collards,
> > watercress, beatgreens, turnip greens, mustard
> > greens, watercress, bok choy, are more
> nutrient
> > rich on a per calorie basis than bananas,
> grapes
> > and mangos. You can fill a human stomach,
> > anyones, bigger or smaller with only so much.
> > That makes it zero sum. More fruit less meat,
> ok
> > more fruit less vegetables, not ok. I'm
> > discussing the latter. Most people following
> > 80-10-10 or otherwise consuming a fruit based
> diet
> > could dismiss this as a strawman. Don't.
> > There's only so much room in the stomach.
> > Bananas vs. kale/collards. ? Oversimplifies
> the
> > issue. But makes the point. What rents your
> > stomach? How well does it protect you? Where
> is
> > the data?
> >
> > Paul
>
> pborst, I'm not sure if I understand you. Are you
> arguing that there is a physical limit to the
> amount you can pass through your stomach and have
> it still performing optimally? I doubt it. Most
> fruit is water anyway, look at how small raisins
> are compared to grapes. I can definitely
> understand (although disagree with as regards
> everything but minerals) the nutrient per calorie
> idea.
>
> I think that most people don't use their
> stomachs/intestines enough, food gets lodged there
> for days at a time. This is especially true for
> thin people who aren't raw, and might be partly
> why many people overeat on the bad foods. I'm
> pretty sure that he idea of eating such a big
> volume of food for the same energy is what turns
> many people off raw foods.
>
> IMO there's no reason to assume that you're using
> your stomach too little or too much by eating
> fruit. Strawman's argument or not, I think the
> burden of proof lies on you if you want to make
> that argument.
>
> Also bananas vs. kale/collards? What about carrots
> vs blueberries? pborst to be honest I find your
> introduction of that argument a bit bizarre, not
> trying to disrespect its possible merits, just how
> you threw it in there like it's a known issue.


A human stomach on average has about a liter of capacity, yes it can stretch but only so far. So, there is a zero sum nature to the throughput of all of us whether you are 80-10-minus 20 or Atkins. That's the starting point. So, zero sum means adding fruits as the majority means if you are health inclined, you aren't eating the vegetables to make room for the fruits. follow. Fructose has been linked to advanced glycation end products, AGEs (see prior posts), Glucose is a beneficial fuel for cancer cells vs. normal cells. Cancer cells benefit from freely flowing insulin and glucose. Warburg got a Nobel prize for that discovery. [en.wikipedia.org]. So AGEs accumulate with fructose, in high sugar fruits in vegetarians who eat them.[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov][www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] And cancer cells thrive on sugar, glucose. You can eat high glycemic load if you want. It's your choice. Proceed at your own risk.

Paul



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2009 08:05PM by pborst.

Debbie,

Agree to disagree, there is a zero sum nature to what we eat. Our stomachs can only eat so much. There is an opportunity cost to eating large quantities of fruit that displace green vegetable throughput. It's that simple. Fruits are fine, esp if low sugar. But we all have to manage our glycemic load. The stakes to our health are much too serious to do otherwise. So, I do not agree with your assessment. I think eating high fruit is better than eating high meat, but eating high vegetable is better than either. In the end, it is for the reader to decide for herself.

Paul



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2009 08:15PM by pborst.

I agree with DebbieTook and anyone else who advocates a high-fruit and high-green diet. I believe fat content can vary from person to person. Some do well on 15% of calories from fat and some like 5% (no avocados, etc. on most days). Fat content should be a weekly or monthly average, not necessarily daily.

I believe that some of us who are doing high fruit have tried a higher fat way of eating raw previously, so we have experiences to compare to on a higher-fat versus lower-fat raw diet. Those who haven't tried high fruit don't have any personal experiences to state.

I can tell you that my body looks awesome, my mind is clear and happy, I am thriving, and I find this the easiest diet to adhere to (for selfish reasons: skin/health - I find veganism easy because it's for ethical reasons).

I find this forum a great resource, as some other raw forums advocate an inadequate, unhealthy diet of dehydrated "food," oils, and salt. Which would make me sick, my body is too clean.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2009 09:27PM by Utopian Life.

Victoria Boutenko, in her book Green for Life, lays out the research that she did on nutritional needs and how our (genetically) closest "wild" relatives eat naturally.

~60% fruit, ~40% greens, with up to 2% seeds, nuts, small insects, rodents, etc.

This is also discussed in the 80/10/10 book, which is well worth the investment.

We are designed to eat a LOT of fruit, as much green leafy veggies as we want, and a small amount of seeds/nuts/fatty fruit for essential fatty acids.

I believe that the 80/10/10RV plan is nutritionally adequate for anyone of decent health, as long as you really do make the effort to incorporate it into an otherwise healthy lifestyle.

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

pborst Wrote:

> Yes, I'm serious. Brocoli, kale, collards,
> watercress, beatgreens, turnip greens, mustard
> greens, watercress, bok choy, are more nutrient
> rich on a per calorie basis than bananas, grapes
> and mangos. You can fill a human stomach,
> anyones, bigger or smaller with only so much.
> That makes it zero sum. More fruit less meat, ok
> more fruit less vegetables, not ok. I'm
> discussing the latter. Most people following
> 80-10-10 or otherwise consuming a fruit based diet
> could dismiss this as a strawman. Don't.
> There's only so much room in the stomach.
> Bananas vs. kale/collards. ? Oversimplifies the
> issue. But makes the point. What rents your
> stomach? How well does it protect you? Where is
> the data?

pborst,
yep you're right, cruciferous are more nutrient dense per calorie than fruit. But would you care to display your typical day's diet for us?

Let's put together a 2350 calorie day of vegetables:
6lbs cauliflower (about 5 medium heads) = 700cal
5lbs broccoli (~24cups, chopped) = 770cal
4lbs kale (~27cups, chopped) = 908cal
Total =2378cal

Do you really eat that many vegetables? That's not too much fiber? Keep in mind I was conservative on the calorie count, if I'm at all active in a day I need to eat closer to 3000 myself.

Ok let's step back from the Ridiculous and into the Extreme category, let's assume you eat 1/2 of the above every day. That's still a LOT. and where do the other >50% of your calories come from exactly? Fat? I guess they come primarily from fat if not from fruit. What fats are you eating? How are your energy levels eating all that fat? Are you exercising every day?

I suggest anyone look into the work of McDougall, Esselstyn, Ornish, Pritikin, Fuhrman, etc if you believe anything but a low-fat diet is ok. Diets with excessive fat can lead to heart disease, cancer, candida, cognitive disorders, diabetes, and other blood sugar issues. Excessive fat reduces insulin efficiency, taxing the pancreas, adrenals, and thyroid, AND can lead to excessive AGE production in the blood due to extended blood sugar elevation.

It's funny you're talking about stomach capacity given how low in calories vegetables are and just how much of them we have to eat for them to predominate our calories.

You're right a sweet tooth is evil. Nature in its infinite wisdom gave us the ability to taste sweets right on the tip of our tongue to punish us, to "kill" us as you said. We have no tongue receptors or satiety trigger for fats. And I bet eating 10lbs of raw vegetables daily is just super delicious.

Are you aware that 80/10/10 does entail eating a lot of greens (1 lb+) and vegetables (many lbs per day)? Care to name 1 vitamin or mineral one might lack on a "high-fruit high-veg" diet vs a "low-fruit very-high-veg" diet? My targets are all reached easily every time.

Are you aware that ALL cells in the body feed (and thrive) on glucose, not just cancer cells? And that in the absence of sufficient carbs in the diet the body must convert fats and proteins into glucose, both highly inefficient processes with negative byproducts in the body? Good luck trying to starve cancer, you can't starve it without also starving the rest of the cells.

Please link your study on how the fructose in fruit specifically (in a raw diet) leads to excessive AGE's, I'd love to read it. Not all fructose is identical, are you aware that the fructose in say HFCS etc is chemically different than that in fruits? (L vs D isomer). It's a big mistake to lump fruit onto any negative study of HFCS or other processed refined free forms of fructose.

"Many researchers have pointed out that the fructose in HFCS is free, unbound fructose, which is not the same as the fructose in fruit, which is bound to other sugars, and is part of a complex that includes fiber, fatty acids, vitamins and minerals.

Leaving this obvious difference aside, the industry would have the public believe that the fructose in fruit and in HFCS are chemically identical. However, most of the fructose in fruit is in the form of L-fructose or levulose; the fructose in HFCS is a different isomer, D-fructose. Small amounts of D-fructose do occur in fruit, but the D-fructose in HFCS has the reversed isomerization and polarity of a refined fructose molecule. As explained by Russ Bianchi, Managing Director and CEO of Adept Solutions, Inc., a globally recognized food and beverage development company, the fructose in HFCS is therefore not recognized in the human Krebs cycle for primary conversion to blood glucose in any significant quantity, and therefore cannot be used for energy utilization."
Source:
www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/HFCSAgave.pdf

edit:
I saw you just posted some studies pborst. They obviously looked at cooked food diets, which I'm sure you're aware causes significant AGE creation. And no mention of processed fructose like HFCS vs fruit intake, they seemed to make assumptions about diet composition. And even those studies pointed out that vegetables have fructose too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2009 09:54PM by rawpreston.

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with DebbieTook and anyone else who
> advocates a high-fruit and high-green diet. I
> believe fat content can vary from person to
> person. Some do well on 15% of calories from fat
> and some like 5% (no avocados, etc. on most days).
> Fat content should be a weekly or monthly
> average, not necessarily daily.
>

FYI this is exactly in-line with 80/10/10. Going a little over 10% fat is fine. And it's not a daily calculation, DG even says that fat can be averaged out for the YEAR. But somewhere in the ballpark of 10% average (or less) is indeed its goal. Other raw diets can easily average >50% fat without people even realizing it, this is higher than the SAD.

spekgirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thank you there is alot of opinions out there but
> i have herd good things about this one.
> are you able to eat dried fruit on this plan?
> and how many nuts would be enough a day is 30g too
> much do yu think?
> im also guessing larabars will have to go???


Dried fruit is less than ideal, because it's very sticky to the teeth, easily leading to tooth/gum issues unless great care is taken flossing/brushing afterwards. And even though dried fruit "only" has its water removed, it's not a whole food, and we cannot be sure which nutrients may be compromised by the removal of the water. I still eat raisins and dates sometimes but I'm trying to cut back.

30g of nuts would be approximately the upper limit for 80/10/10 on a 2000 calorie diet.

Larabars are pretty bad in terms of food combining, and most of them aren't fully raw, or all that fresh, so they're not ideal either. But eating one every once in a while is probably ok.

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!!!

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

Fruits and don't eat the avocado until the end of the day.

Yes, definitely the fruits. Don't bother with the avocado, I've never even tasted avocado.

About seventy percent of my diet right now consists of grapes, the rest being plums, baby-leaf lettuce, sweetcorn, and sometimes peanuts. I love grapefruit, but they are out of season right now unfortunately [they're still there, but they don't taste as good and when that happens I quit eating them!!!).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2009 11:13PM by SuperInfinity.

rawpreston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
>
> > Yes, I'm serious. Brocoli, kale, collards,
> > watercress, beatgreens, turnip greens, mustard
> > greens, watercress, bok choy, are more
> nutrient
> > rich on a per calorie basis than bananas,
> grapes
> > and mangos. You can fill a human stomach,
> > anyones, bigger or smaller with only so much.
> > That makes it zero sum. More fruit less meat,
> ok
> > more fruit less vegetables, not ok. I'm
> > discussing the latter. Most people following
> > 80-10-10 or otherwise consuming a fruit based
> diet
> > could dismiss this as a strawman. Don't.
> > There's only so much room in the stomach.
> > Bananas vs. kale/collards. ? Oversimplifies
> the
> > issue. But makes the point. What rents your
> > stomach? How well does it protect you? Where
> is
> > the data?
>
> pborst,
> yep you're right, cruciferous are more nutrient
> dense per calorie than fruit. But would you care
> to display your typical day's diet for us?
>
> Let's put together a 2350 calorie day of
> vegetables:
> 6lbs cauliflower (about 5 medium heads) = 700cal
> 5lbs broccoli (~24cups, chopped) = 770cal
> 4lbs kale (~27cups, chopped) = 908cal
> Total =2378cal
>
> Do you really eat that many vegetables? That's
> not too much fiber? Keep in mind I was
> conservative on the calorie count, if I'm at all
> active in a day I need to eat closer to 3000
> myself.
>
> Ok let's step back from the Ridiculous and into
> the Extreme category, let's assume you eat 1/2 of
> the above every day. That's still a LOT. and
> where do the other >50% of your calories come from
> exactly? Fat? I guess they come primarily from
> fat if not from fruit. What fats are you eating?
> How are your energy levels eating all that fat?
> Are you exercising every day?
>
> I suggest anyone look into the work of McDougall,
> Esselstyn, Ornish, Pritikin, Fuhrman, etc if you
> believe anything but a low-fat diet is ok. Diets
> with excessive fat can lead to heart disease,
> cancer, candida, cognitive disorders, diabetes,
> and other blood sugar issues. Excessive fat
> reduces insulin efficiency, taxing the pancreas,
> adrenals, and thyroid, AND can lead to excessive
> AGE production in the blood due to extended blood
> sugar elevation.
>
> It's funny you're talking about stomach capacity
> given how low in calories vegetables are and just
> how much of them we have to eat for them to
> predominate our calories.
>
> You're right a sweet tooth is evil. Nature in its
> infinite wisdom gave us the ability to taste
> sweets right on the tip of our tongue to punish
> us, to "kill" us as you said. We have no tongue
> receptors or satiety trigger for fats. And I bet
> eating 10lbs of raw vegetables daily is just super
> delicious.
>
> Are you aware that 80/10/10 does entail eating a
> lot of greens (1 lb+) and vegetables (many lbs per
> day)? Care to name 1 vitamin or mineral one might
> lack on a "high-fruit high-veg" diet vs a
> "low-fruit very-high-veg" diet? My targets are
> all reached easily every time.
>
> Are you aware that ALL cells in the body feed (and
> thrive) on glucose, not just cancer cells? And
> that in the absence of sufficient carbs in the
> diet the body must convert fats and proteins into
> glucose, both highly inefficient processes with
> negative byproducts in the body? Good luck trying
> to starve cancer, you can't starve it without also
> starving the rest of the cells.
>
> Please link your study on how the fructose in
> fruit specifically (in a raw diet) leads to
> excessive AGE's, I'd love to read it. Not all
> fructose is identical, are you aware that the
> fructose in say HFCS etc is chemically different
> than that in fruits? (L vs D isomer). It's a big
> mistake to lump fruit onto any negative study of
> HFCS or other processed refined free forms of
> fructose.
>
> "Many researchers have pointed out that the
> fructose in HFCS is free, unbound fructose, which
> is not the same as the fructose in fruit, which is
> bound to other sugars, and is part of a complex
> that includes fiber, fatty acids, vitamins and
> minerals.
>
> Leaving this obvious difference aside, the
> industry would have the public believe that the
> fructose in fruit and in HFCS are chemically
> identical. However, most of the fructose in fruit
> is in the form of L-fructose or levulose; the
> fructose in HFCS is a different isomer,
> D-fructose. Small amounts of D-fructose do occur
> in fruit, but the D-fructose in HFCS has the
> reversed isomerization and polarity of a refined
> fructose molecule. As explained by Russ Bianchi,
> Managing Director and CEO of Adept Solutions,
> Inc., a globally recognized food and beverage
> development company, the fructose in HFCS is
> therefore not recognized in the human Krebs cycle
> for primary conversion to blood glucose in any
> significant quantity, and therefore cannot be used
> for energy utilization."
> Source:
> www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/HFCSAgave.pdf
>
> edit:
> I saw you just posted some studies pborst. They
> obviously looked at cooked food diets, which I'm
> sure you're aware causes significant AGE creation.
> And no mention of processed fructose like HFCS vs
> fruit intake, they seemed to make assumptions
> about diet composition. And even those studies
> pointed out that vegetables have fructose too.


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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2009 11:19PM by pborst.

okay so would a large salad morning and night and then fruit in the day be the right way to go?
also what about food combinding like in my salads can i add berries ect?
and what if i dont eat any fat just fruit and veggies? is that okay or do you need nuts or avocado?

You don't need nuts and avocado, but you can just see how you feel and if you want some, average it out to 1/3 to 1/2 avocado per day or 1 oz. nuts per day. No reason to be counting or measuring too strictly if you average out or feel fine.

I think anything combines well with TENDER LEAFY greens. You mean spinach and mixed spring mix and stuff? It's fine to eat greens and sweet fruit in the same meal.

Fruits will give you energy during the day. You can slow down the fruits and eat veggies at night (unless you want fruit; then by all means, have it).

don't worry about 3,000 calories per day, either. If you're active enough, you'll burn it off (as most high fruiters exercise and don't sit around reading forums. )) hehe

Also, don't worry about conflicting opinions. I think you'll see if you eliminate fruit (which I don't recommend, but if you want to try, you can) that you will not have energy and you will be lacking in carbs. If you want to try low fruit high fat, you can. And you can always come back to high fruit.

Many of us have experienced this and know what works for us, so we're just telling you that. I have tried higher fat (30-40% calories from fat) raw and I definitely love lower fat better. Anyone else is free to give their experience.