I don't know if the 80/10/10 ratio is necessarily deficient, but I think it's possible that the Dr. Graham version of 80/10/10 could lead to deficiency.

I'm a hard-core raw vegan person. I don't have the luxury of resorting to cooked foods whenever I feel extremely hungry. My consistitution is such that I simply can't handle eating cooked foods at all. Period.

So I've had to be vigilant in following a raw vegan diet that supplies everything. Dr. Graham's version falls short for me.

I have his book, and there appear to be several misstatements passed off as "science".

I believe the most crucial among these involve Dr. Graham's intense fear of "fat", in combination with his basically dismissive attitude toward getting enough of the micronutrients (vitamins and minerals).

On page 131 of The 80/10/10 Diet, Graham cites Dr. Colin Campbell's book, The China Study as evidence that raw fats are as harmful as cooked fats. Under the subtitle "Cooked or Raw, Too Much Fat is Still Too Much Fat", Graham says, "Cooked or raw, the excessive consumption of fat has been incontrovertibly linked to the development of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. Future research is expected to continue to support this statement, as countless thousands of studies have already done, including the Framingham Heart Study and the China Study..."

I don't know what the "countless thousands of studies" are, but neither the Framingham Heart Study nor the China Study made any differentiation between cooked fats and raw fats. They studied low fat mostly vegetarian diets compared to high fat meat diets.

Dr. Graham correctly stated on page 110 that Dr. Campbell would have liked to include recommendations for fat consumption lower than 30% to 40% in a nutrition report that Dr. Campbell co-authored. But the reference was taken out of context, and should not be interpreted to mean that Dr. Campbell's observations are in line with Dr. Graham's.

For anyone who's interested, Dr. Campbell goes on to say:

"At the time of this report, all of the human-based studies showing fat to be related to cancer (mostly breast and large bowel) were actually showing that the populations with more cancer consumed not just more fat, but more animal-based foods, or a lack of plant-based foods. This meant that these cancers could just as easily be caused by animal protein, dietary cholesterol, something else exclusively found in animal-based foods, or a lack of plant-based foods. But rather than wagging the finger at animal-based foods in these studies, dietary fat was given as the main culprit. I argued against putting the emphasis on specific nutrients in the committee meetings, but only with modest success...

"This mistake of characterizing whole foods by the health effects of specific nutrients is what I call reductionism. For example, the health effect of a hamburger cannot be simply attributed to the effect of a few grams of saturated fat in the meat. Saturated fat is merely one ingredient. Hamburgers also include other types of fat, in addition to cholesterol, protein and very small amounts of vitamins and minerals. Even if you change the level of saturated fat in the meat, all of the other nutrients are still present and may still have harmful effects on health. It is a case of the whole (the hamburger) being greater than the sum of its parts (the saturated fat, the cholesterol, etc.)" (page 271, The China Study, italics mine)

The fact is that raw vegan sources of "fat" like nuts and seeds include many nutrients other than just "fat". Some nutrients, like calcium and zinc, may be very difficult to access in sufficient quantities without regularly including nuts and seeds in a raw food diet. I agree with Dr. Graham that it's important to not overconsume these foods, but I also believe that his recommendations are severe to the point of becoming a health risk.

Dr. Graham dismisses a concern for the micronutrients with his statement on page 7, "... I have heard estimates that scientists today may only have discovered 10% of the nutrients in existence, particularly the so-called phytonutrients (plant nutrients). In light of this, we might stop for a moment to wonder: How can any of us claim to have zeroed in on some specific nutrient deficiency and take informed action toward correcting it? It cannot be done intelligently, in my opinion."

Well, we don't know whom Dr. Graham "heard" these "estimates" from, but even if they're true, his point appears to be that since we don't know everything yet, we might as well act like we don't know anything!

Reality Check: Vitamin and mineral deficiencies symptoms have been successfully corrected by dietary improvements for many decades, if not centuries.

"Vitamines" were discovered by Dr. Ejikman in the late 1800s during his work in Java to try to find a cure for beriberi disease. It turned out that beriberi was caused by a lack a thiamin in the diet due to the consumption of white rice instead of brown.

[nobelprize.org]

Dr. Ejikman thought that the missing thiamin was a protein, since vitamins were unknown at the time.

"In the 1800s, it was known that people needed proteins, carbohydrates, fat and salt to stay healthy. No one had heard of vitamins...

In 1906, the British biochemist Frederick Hopkins demonstrated that food contains necessary "accessory factors" in addition to proteins, carbohydrates, fats, salts and water."

Do we really need to go back to thinking that all of our nutritional needs are met simply by adhering to (Graham's interpretation of) a correct carb/protein/fat ratio?

I give Graham credit for including greens in the diet in an attempt to have more minerals, but I just don't think a complete raw diet is automatically attained with the limited amount of food groups and the severe restrictions of certain raw vegan food groups advocated by Doug Graham's version of 80/10/10.

With all of Graham's insistence on the consumption of "whole" foods, it's disheartening to observe that he includes only hulled sesame seeds - sesame seeds without the hull - in his few daily menus that include nuts or seeds. Strange, and unfortunate. Sesame seeds are the most concentrated calcium source on the planet, and most of the calcium is in the hull! When it comes to seeds, the body often utilizes the hull while discarding the remains of whatever wasn't chewed. Check your @#$%& when you eat whole (brown) sesame seeds. Many of the seeds come out of us intact, but without the hull.

Graham states, "There is no doubt but that early humans in nature did consume some nuts and seeds, though certainly plants create them for reproduction, not for consumption."

How can that be? Did plants evolve in isolation from the animals that love to eat their seeds? Try eating a tomato and then go @#$%& outside somewhere. You ate tomato seeds, and those seeds will sprout if @#$%& onto fertile ground in a friendly climate. The same is true of whatever sesame seeds/sunflower seeds/pumpkin seeds/ etc. were eaten, not thoroughly chewed, and @#$%& out in nature. Yes, many seeds were lost, but the tradeoff is that the seeds are dispersed over a larger environment, so the chances of survival of the seed species are enhanced. A similar situation exists for nuts. When squirrels/rats/mongooses eat nuts from trees, they often gather them, but also drop them on their way to their destination. I've seen palm seeds and macadamia nut seeds scattered all over our farm - far from their origin tree - by critters that dropped them. In addition, the nuts attract the critters to come and @#$%& under the trees, and that of course helps feed the tree.

Nature is symbiotic. When it's rules are applied, everyone benefits. One species can never truly thrive in isolation, without contributing to the others.

By the way, Graham's assertion that truly raw macadamia nuts have the texture of nut butter is also absolutely false.

Yes, it's true that most (not all) marketed nuts and seeds are dehydrated, but usually at temperatures low enough where the nuts and seeds retain their life force - as evidenced by their ability to sprout. If left to their own devices, nuts and seeds lose much of their water content naturally as a means of self-preservation over long winters, or whenever conditions call for a time gap between falling from the tree/plant and sprouting to create a new tree/plant.

All of the seeds that we purchase for our gardens have been dehydrated, yet we still plant them and they grow. If we keep our own seeds, unless we plant them right away, they have to be dried somehow for any longterm storage. Up to a certain point when the nuts/seeds go rancid or stale, they are perfectly OK to eat (if organic, of course).

Nuts may also be just fine (as long as they taste fresh)- even though they don't sprout - because they may be dormant for the season.

Fruit fats cannot be considered superior to fats from nuts/seeds, because those two groups of foods contain different nutrients. Both groups supply beneficial nutrients when eaten whole, raw, and organic.

Seaweed. Dr. Graham says it's not good to eat seaweed. Why? Because he doesn't like the taste of fresh seaweed. Never mind that fresh seaweed is a staple for island nations worldwide. In Hawaii, it's called "limu". But Dr. Graham doesn't like it, so no one should eat it.

There goes our best - and only - reliable raw vegan source of iodine, an essential nutrient, required for healthy thyroid function, as well as other body functions. The World Health Organization refers to iodine deficiency as "the single greatest cause of mental retardation."

It's interesting that Dr. Graham includes a ratio chart for Abkhasians, Vilcabambans and Hunzans, the longest-living peoples on earth. Their fat consumption is 18%, 15%, and 17%, respectively. Not 10%. Their dietary fat % allows for higher-fat vegan foods like nuts and seeds that contain essential nutrients (besides just fat) to be consumed regularly.

A recent post here by Mark Squire should be noted with concern [www.rawfoodsupport.com]. The first of the "success stories" included in "The 80/10/10 Diet" was written by Mark Squire, a former long-time advocate of Graham's 80/10/10. I commend Mark Squire for having the courage - and for caring enough - to share his experience. I hope people will notice.

I personally think some of Dr. Graham's work is very good. All this attention on 80/10/10 has helped me to reduce my own fat intake down to just under around 20%, and so far, that seems to be a good thing.

It may even be possible that a diet based on an 80/10/10 ratio is adequate - if a sufficient variety and quantity of all raw food groups is included. I don't know. We have absolutely zero comprehensive raw food studies to provide evidence for or against.

I continue to believe that cleaning out and ocassional fasts etc. are good.

But, in my experience, sufficient nutrient intake over the long haul is critical for staying healthy raw. Nuts and seeds (soaked or unsoaked), sprouted grains and legumes, seaweeds and landweeds(greens), along with an abundance of fruits are all essential ingredients in a sustainable long-term raw food diet. Yes, I agree that some raw foods require more moderation than others; but not to the extent that Dr. Graham would like us to take it.

(There is no personal offense intended towards anyone in this post. If for any reason, this post/thread is deleted, I hope I will be granted an explanation. Thank you.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2010 12:51AM by suncloud.

Suncloud-- I think you make some very valid claims. 80-10-10 isn't the first word or the last word in dietary understanding. Kudos to you for your thoughtful investigations and self-experimentation with it.

Another problem I have with the 80-10-10 diet is (to my understanding, anyway-- tell me if I'm wrong): the concept that one needs to eat massive amounts of fruit and even stretch the stomach and make it much larger in order to get all the nutrients needed. This teaching has never resonated with me. The only way to assimilate and digest all of that bulk is to then engage in a massive amount of exercise. Somehow that seems a little imbalanced to me also. It's great for someone who's a professional athlete, or someone who just happens to enjoy engageing in extreme fitness, but for the rest of us it doesn't make sense.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

Just to note, I was unable to comment on Mark's post on that thread, because I can't find it.

My comment to Mark would be this: I believe from my personal experience that a raw food vegan diet is the healthiest diet - in fact the only healthy diet - for me.

But I very much appreciate your courage and integrity, and I believe it's crucial for us all to keep a wary eye out for any diet that might be fantastic in the short term, but possibly deficient in the long.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2010 01:14AM by suncloud.

Thank you for your comments Kwan.

It's interesting that Kwan and I both have some qualms about Dr. Graham's 80/10/10.

I've been a raw vegan for 23 years, and I believe Kwan has been raw vegan for over 30.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2010 01:25AM by suncloud.

suncloud,

Have you been 100% raw vegan the entire 23 years?

Ever since I've known Mark, and I knew him when he was first trying out 80-10-10, he did his own "version" of the diet, which included lots of green juice. So this means he wasn't really doing Doug's diet, but his own.

And myself, I've been 100% raw vegan now for over 8 years, and over 7 years have been high percentage 80-10-10. But still, I indulge in gourmet raw vegan from time to time, so I can't say that I've been doing Doug's program 100% either.

The issues I see when I meet raw foodist who don't look good on their raw diet is explained in this article What will you manifest with your raw energy?. What makes people heal from their bout with a high fruit diet is not any missing nutrient, but rather their energy is not as high because of their food choices, and in that place these folk can find balance again. In some sense, not everyone can hold the charge found in such a clean diet as 80-10-10. For many, using that diet as a cleanse is good enough (as Mark stated).

Others have written about dealing with the energy. I think Storm had a blog post about dealing with it, and feeling tempted to quit raw. And then there's my article above. Its really what a person does with all this new found energy, and whether they direct it toward health or towards their worst fears, which determines whether or not they are going to thrive on raw foods or not.

This is good. I'm gonna boogie, laugh, run in the wind, swim, do art, bask in the sun, climb a moutnain, YOGA

Bryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> suncloud,
>
> Have you been 100% raw vegan the entire 23 years?

No Bryan. I've been vegan without transgression for 23 years, but for the first four years of that time, I lived on a diet very similar to what Graham promotes, and that caused problems for me. At the time, it was called a "mucousless diet", following the path of Arnold Ehret. Lots of fruits (that's why I moved to Hawaii), and greens. A few avocados, sometimes some spoonmeat (soft) coconut. I was very consistent, but about every 3 weeks, I lost "control", ate cooked vegan food, and felt terrible. There wasn't any "gourmet raw vegan food" where I lived at that time, and I'd never even heard of it.

Finally, I had a very severe attack of vertigo that caused me go to bed for hours, clinging to the mattress to try to keep my brain from spinning. After the attack subsided, for several more hours, I wasn't able to walk without falling over.

A nurse suggested to me that I might be iron deficient. I checked my iron consumption (something I'd never previously done), and found that she could be right. A couple of days later, I started eating some sunflower seeds everyday, and gradually learned to add many raw foods that I'd ignored in the past. My episodes with cooked vegan food diminished almost immediately to around 5 times the first year, a couple of times the next, a few more times just here and there, until now when I've lost count of all the years of total raw. I've never had another severe vertigo attack, and in fact the brief vertigo attacks (that I had since age 12) have disappeared.
>
> Ever since I've known Mark, and I knew him when he
> was first trying out 80-10-10, he did his own
> "version" of the diet, which included lots of
> green juice. So this means he wasn't really doing
> Doug's diet, but his own.
>
> And myself, I've been 100% raw vegan now for over
> 8 years, and over 7 years have been high
> percentage 80-10-10. But still, I indulge in
> gourmet raw vegan from time to time, so I can't
> say that I've been doing Doug's program 100%
> either.

Apparently Dr. Graham thought well enough of Mark Squire's 80/10/10 diet to print Mark's "Success Story" in his book (page 265)!

With all due respect Bryan, if, as you say, you're not following Dr. Graham's program 100% yourself, it doesn't appear that your experience verifies that the program works.

Of course, we can always claim that if people can't do Doug's program, it's because they're not doing it 100%. It's always possible to say that, because if a person isn't doing it, they're not doing it.

I get what you're saying, but maybe the reason they (and you) are not doing it 100% is because it's not a sustainable diet.
>
> The issues I see when I meet raw foodist who don't
> look good on their raw diet is explained in this
> article What will you manifest with your raw
> energy?. What makes people heal from their bout
> with a high fruit diet is not any missing
> nutrient, but rather their energy is not as high
> because of their food choices, and in that place
> these folk can find balance again. In some sense,
> not everyone can hold the charge found in such a
> clean diet as 80-10-10. For many, using that diet
> as a cleanse is good enough (as Mark stated).
>
> Others have written about dealing with the energy.
> I think Storm had a blog post about dealing with
> it, and feeling tempted to quit raw. And then
> there's my article above. Its really what a person
> does with all this new found energy, and whether
> they direct it toward health or towards their
> worst fears, which determines whether or not they
> are going to thrive on raw foods or not.

I appreciate your opinion Bryan. I think you have a lot of very helpful information, and I appreciate the difficulties of trying to be a fair-minded monitor and still keep the focus positive.

But I like to know what works (and doesn't work) for other people too.

I think Mark's post was important, and I think it should be reinstated. After all, nearly that entire thread - several pages long! - was positive toward 80/10/10. If 80/10/10 has any relevance at all, it should be able to withstand one well-intentioned and considerate response in disagreement - especially after Mark had previously posted in favor. I think he's entitled to state his current thoughts on the matter - even though I personally wouldn't have come to the exact same conclusion as Mark.

My position is, let's all respect one another, keep the negative personal comments and judgements to a minimum, but have open discussion about what's working and not working for us. If we are ever able to advance in our knowledge of a raw food diet, it won't happen because any one person figured it out, and the rest of us follow their every word.

(Thanks Bryan for allowing this thread)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2010 03:47AM by suncloud.

>My position is, let's all respect one another, keep the negative personal comments and judgements to a minimum, but have open discussion about what's working and not working for us. If we are ever able to advance in our knowledge of a raw food diet, it won't happen because any one person figured it out, and the rest of us follow their every word.<

Beautiful. Couldn't ask for a better approach, Suncloud. :-)

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

I would like to remind folk who are new to raw foods that there's more to health than diet.

I thought this board was a raw vegan board, but it seems to be a stronghold for 80-10-10. I noticed that the thread with Mark's response had been deleted. I think people should be allowed to voice their experiences so we can all learn from it. I strongly believe in raw vegan, but I have also realized that it has to be done with care. Not warning people about possible problems (if not done right) would be extremely irresponsible and endangering their health. What is this board all about? Do we not want to help each other to thrive on raw vegan? THAT IS WHAT I AM AFTER.
PLEASE.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2010 05:13AM by greenpower.

The thread with Marks response was deleted because it was an old thread with a lot of debate and contention, something I've been trying to eliminate from this forum. While the some of the info in that thread was useful, it is now dated and there are better places to get 80-10-10 support, like www.30bananasaday.com. My tolerance for judgment and criticism (including my own) is diminishing over time.

Someone reposted Mark's post, and I have no intention of deleting that post. However, if that thread becomes full of debate and contention, I will delete that thread also.

greenpower, if you are not thriving on raw vegan, please state the problems you are experiencing, and perhaps people here with more experience can share their experience with you.

Thanks Bryan for allowing this thread. Hopefully it can be a positive and productive debate.

Hi All,

I didn't mean to spark any sort of huge debate, or start having posts deleted and everything. I also don't mean any disrespect to Doug Graham himself, or any of his faithful followers. I just wanted to get a few things off of my chest, and share my experience with the raw food community. I'm still a HUGE fan and advocate of raw foodism, and in fact, MOST of my diet is currently raw. I just feel most balanced with a very, very minute amount of some animal food. I don't eat lbs and lbs of beef, butter, milk, eggs, and crazy stuff like that. I'm not on a raw paleo diet. I just listened to my body is all.

And to Bryan, how's it going, old friend? You're right, I switched to juicing my greens for a time, because I honestly couldn't physically EAT the amount of greens Doug was suggesting, while still maintaining my fruit intake. I needed 4,000 calories a day, and then on top of it, several lbs of greens. I just couldn't eat that much bulk fiber. I began juicing tons of greens daily. However, that was for a period of only a few months, then I did in fact go back to eating the greens. I just simply reduced my fruit intake to compensate. I was off my "bulking" phase, and didn't require as many calories.

Anyway, what happened to me was completely real. Like I said before, I have no malicious intent. I have no ulterior motives. Didn't really mean to spark any sort of debates. I just don't want for people to put blind faith into something that could "potentially" be very harmful, long term. I saw potentially, because maybe it won't happen to everyone. Maybe my fruit/veg wasn't grown on the right kind of soil. But my problems WERE indeed diet related. It wasn't stress, wasn't my life, wasn't emotional baggage, wasn't any of those. It was a mysterious onset of nerve-related issues, due to gross deficiencies in my diet.

I'm not against raw food veganism at all. I think if you're going to jump on ANYONE'S bandwagon, go to David Wolfe. I used to be against him because of his supplement pitches, but the guy really, really does his homework, and knows his stuff. He's truly a brilliant guy, and his passion is unparalleled. I've successfully implemented quite a number of his suggestions, and I find his ongoing research to be fascinating. I've heard him speak about the 8/1/1 diet and other hygeine-based diets, and the deficiencies associated with them. Not surprisingly, my symptoms were no surprise.

I'll say it again, because I can't say it enough -- I didn't mean any disrespect to anyone's beliefs, to Doug Graham, or to anyone. Like I said in my previous post, I think Doug's diet is OUTSTANDING for an athlete in training, or for someone who needs to overcome an illness. I'd actually recommend his diet over ANY for those two things. But long-term? No. Wouldn't recommend it.

Best,
Mark

You know, this board has not always been so exclusively focused on 80-10-10-- not at all. I've had the pleasure of being a participant on the rawfoods.com board for nearly 20 years, and I remember vividly that during the 1990s it was focused almost completely on the Natural Hygiene dietary paradigm when David Klein was the moderator. And I think when Red Rose briefly took over as moderator for a few months there was also an emphasis on fruitarianism.

Some day another raw food guru may write a book that opens our eyes even a little wider than Doug Graham's 80-10-10 book has, exposing us to new understanding that we don't have at this moment. Are we done learning, and is 80-10-10 the sum of all that can be known forever and ever about health and well-being? Of course not. Or will we remain open and willing to go into uncharted territory? 80-10-10 is a great start, and so are the teachings of Tonya Zavasta, Gabriel Cousens, Victoria Boutenko, Arnold Ehret, Victoras Kuvinskas, Brian Clements, Ann Wigmore, and a host of other inspiring leaders and path-finders. But if we will be honest with ourselves, in my opinion, we will admit that the raw food lifestyle is best viewed as an open-minded, open-hearted ongoing experiment and an exciting, curiosity-driven quest for excellence in our lives, rather than a rigid doctrine.

If you find that your ideal raw food path seems to be uniquely your own and doesn't conform to a particular consensus reality set of concepts or teachings, please, for heaven's sake don't immediately blame yourself or assume you are doing the wrong things. Maybe you are on the right track; maybe not. Keep going. Only YOU know what lies within you, so only you can rightly judge your own psychological character and physical needs, so as to arrive at a correct conclusion about whether a certain diet and lifestyle is right for you.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

One other thing... another Kudos to 8/1/1.... Candida. I know of no faster Candida cure than to do 8/1/1. It clears up candida often in a week or two. Eating one single fruit per day, for 7 days, and candida is usually history. That's just simply incredible. No supplements, just the cost of food.

Just trying to reinforce that I'm not here to bash 8/1/1! It definitely, without question, has its place.

Best,
Mark

The raw vegan diet is not for everyone. How do I know this? Well, over 6 billion people are not raw vegan, and probably less than 1/100th of 1 percent of world's population are raw vegan.

And among the raw vegans, the 80-10-10ers are probably the smallest group. So if raw vegan diet is not for everyone, certainly Doug's program is even less so.

This forum is here to support people on their quest for health on a raw vegan diet. While the mind loves to judge and criticize others, what about supporting your fellow raw vegans with something other than criticism? How about coming from that place outside of mind - the heart and spirit.

I encourage people to share what works for them to stay raw vegan. Rather than criticize what you believe or you think to to not work in other people's diets, share your experience of what is working for you.

And remember that this is a raw vegan forum, so posts about eating animal products will be deleted.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2010 06:48AM by Bryan.

A handful of people prospering on a diet means just that - it works for that handful of people. To then say it's the premier diet because it works for me doesn't have any substance when many other people are failing on it.

Raw diets aren't new. They have been around for over 100 years. If 811 works for you, that's great, but unless you have had a 95% success rate long term dealing with other people, rather than a 95% failure rate, I think new people on this board should know the all facts and be made aware of all the pitfalls.

And what happens when you get old. No old people ever eat till they stretch their stomachs. All long lived people are moderate eaters.

Also, most people aren't triathletes. What is the point in offering them a triathletes diet when a lot of us lead mostly passive lives. Perhaps Doug has a fantastic metabolism and was very athletic in his youth so he can easily digest all that food in one sitting, but a lot of people can't. And when peoples blood sugar spikes and they are tired after the drop to then say eat more fruit just isn't dealing with reality.

What I have learned so far from our own experiences:

One practical problem can be Zinc deficiency. A very real possibility. I used to ignore it and set my goal at lower levels (!), usually around 50%, thinking that on a raw diet may be the body needs less. Wishful thinking!!! Zinc is very important ESPECIALLY for carbohydrate metabolism, and for production of insulin. Granted that the sugars in fruit are half fructose, if you eat lots of fruits, you still get lots of glucose and other sugars which still need insulin.
Seeds are a good source of Zinc. But if you have to restrict yourself to 10% fat, you will not be able to eat enough seeds for zinc. You can add sprouted lentils (which is what I am doing), but you need to eat an awful lot of it to get enough zinc too. I can not eat that many raw lentils every day. Another source is raw fermented oatmeal, which I am experimenting with just now. I have noticed so far that increasing my intake of zinc reduces bloating (lentils, oats, more seeds). Reducing fruit, and increasing zinc seems to help. I am still working on this.

Another practical issue can be vitamin A. Raw vegans get plenty of provitamin A (beta caroteen). This has to be converted in the liver to vitamin A. For someone with a compromised liver this can be tricky, they just cannot convert enough of the beta caroteen to proper vitamin A, and everyone will agree vit A is essential for numerous systems in the body (dental health being one of them).

Vitamin D of course should not be overlooked. Plenty sunlight is crucial for thriving on a vegan diet.

Sodium is something to consider, you MUST get your greens, in whatever form. Or supplement with seasalt, but seasalt gives me stiff joints, even celtic salt, and I use only minimal amounts.

Calcium? Raw greens have plenty of calcium, but not everyone can eat that much fiber. If you juice the greens you will loose a lot of the calcium which stays behind in the fiber, something I only realized recently.

So far what we learned on our journey. Love to learn more!

im curious how you (greenpower) came to realize that calcium stays in the fiber if you juice the greens?

ive never heard of that before

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Suncloud, although I'm a big Dr D fan, I do feel that many raw vegans are too afraid of fat, and there has not been sufficient distinction made between raw fat and cooked fat. I'm actually concerned at 'no overts' being seen by some as some sort of holy grail for ALL high-fruit raw vegans.

Brian, I've just read the thread through in detail, and I can't see 'criticism'...(or at least not in a negative sense). Posts so far seem very thoughtful, and generous to those with different opinions/raw food diet preferences. And, although my teeth have been fine on a high-fruit diet (though not 811) I do feel Mark has bent over backwards to be positive about 811, and is simply sharing his own experiences/perceptions. I hope the thread can continue in this vein, but appreciate that you'll be looking out for those 'turning points' that characterise threads that degenerate!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2010 09:02AM by debbietook.

Suncloud - thank you so much for posting such a good and thought provoking post.

Bryan - I completely agree that we should be positive about what works for us and not negative about others however I do want to make one point which I have said before but which I think is very important.

That is don't blindly follow one leader or coach. I read on another forum yesterday about a raw food coach who has strongly encouraged people to not supplement and follow a NH diet who has now discovered herself to be very low in B12. She discovered this due to worrying symptoms which she reconized and had a blood test done. She may now have to re-consider her approach to being raw.

This coach has less than 2 years raw experience herself but yet has been telling others how to do it. Be careful who you listen to.

For this reason I truly appreciate Suncloud and Kwan's input as they really do have the experience to back up what they say.

Flipperjan, if this is me (my recent 30 Bananas post)...could I just say that:

It's three years raw, not two :-)

I'm not a coach - I dropped that 'title' years ago (for various reasons, ie the 'coaching' thing is a bit silly). Neither have I ever called myself an 'expert'. I've taken care not to portray myself as such (see my www.rawforlife.co.uk site on 'What is the Raw Food Diet?'

In my supplements article, Aug 08, I say that I am broadly anti-supplements, and explain why, BUT I have included in the article an important caveat re B12, and have never told people not to supplement forB12.

And I certainly won't be considering my approach to being raw. Rawforlife.

And I continue to strongly advocate a Natural Hygiene diet, and will continue to do so. BTW, Natural Hygiene diets are vegan and vegetarian.

If you were referring to me, I'm worried that my post might have been misunderstood elsewhere, and I hope that people will correct any misperceptions.

(And if it's not me, apologies...coincidence!)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2010 09:10AM by debbietook.

Here's a link to the article:

[debbietookrawforlife.blogspot.com]

In particular, note para 1 where, although at that time I was still calling myself a 'coach' (think I stopped VERY shortly afterwards!) I make it very clear that I'm just a raw foodist blogging. Regular readers of my blog will know that I make frequent comments of this sort in an effort NOT to misrepresent myself, or set myself up as, god forbid, a 'raw food leader'!

See also para 5 where I discuss B12 and (I thought) had made it very clear that, where B12 is concerned, I was 'not sure' and would 'never say never' as far as B12 (and indeed any supplement) was concerned.

The article is about the Natural Hygiene approach to supplements 'in general', which I still follow.

(And, for vegans reading, sorry about the dairy bit, but it wouldn't be right to start making any sneaky late edits just for readers on this forum!)

IMO, with 80/10/10 as well as with any other raw dietary paradigm: take what works for you, and leave the rest.

candida is caused by an imbalance and lack of good flora, an akaline terrain which allows opportunistic pathogens like candida to change from their harmless yeast form to overgrowth fungal form which is usually kept in check from the acids that your good bacteria release.

if whatever problems you had cured from eating fruit i can assure you, you prob didnt have candida.

Just wanted to express my gratitude to Mark Squire and to everyone here for helping to keep this thread positive!

And THANK YOU again to Bryan for allowing this thread (and for your gentle reminders).

powerlifer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> candida is caused by an imbalance and lack of good
> flora, an akaline terrain which allows
> opportunistic pathogens like candida to change
> from their harmless yeast form to overgrowth
> fungal form which is usually kept in check from
> the acids that your good bacteria release.
>
> if whatever problems you had cured from eating
> fruit i can assure you, you prob didnt have
> candida.

This doen't make alot of sense to me. From what Ive read, the underlying cause of Candida seems to be chronically high levels of nutrients in the blood (ie sugars, fats)

"Sesame seeds are the most concentrated calcium source on the planet, and most of the calcium is in the hull!"

When I try to eat raw sesame seeds, I right away, the same day, get leg cramps.

I read in a health book that sesame seeds are high in oxalic acid [which takes away the calcium]; however, this can be neutralized by sprouting, then roasting.

I have tried only sprouting the seeds, but their taste is unpleasant & unappealing to me. So then I tried sprouting + roasting (yes, I know this is a raw foods forum) and that did the trick. No more cramps, which means that the calcium in the seeds is being digested & utilized by my body!

If there is a way to make the sprouted raw sesame seeds tasty & appealing to eat, I would welcome that advice.

Contrary to popular belief, we don't need to bring high calcium foods into our bodies. Our bodies biologically transmutate a combination of minerals (especially silica & magnesium) into the calcium we see in our bones & teeth. High calcium foods in nature are always high in oxalic acid and/or anti-nutrients. And of course, milk is a big no-no. We hardly absorb any of the calcium we take in through foods. Our body doesn't know what the heck to do with it. We're not calcium critters -- sorry Bob Barefoot & the Coral Calcium folks -- we're not!

I've seen some pretty intelligent people in the field of science recommend diets of LESS than 200mg of calcium per day.

Yes, we have TONS of calcium in our bodies, but it didn't get there from the ingestion of calcium.

David Wolfe has done some excellent research in this field. I also recommend the book "Biological Transmutations" by C. Louis Kervran. It's truly fascinating how our bodies work.

Best,
Mark

Hi. I am familiar with the ideas of Louis Kervran, too. Thanx for mentioning him. My understanding of his claims is that we have to have an optimally functioning liver/digestive system (all body systems, really) in order for this transmutation to take place. If you have spent decades eating crap and living a grossly unnatural life I don't think you can just stop consuming calcium-rich containing food. I would propose that high-Ca food is there for those of us who are not transmuting as much as we should be.

I do know this - that people who have been diagnosed as deficient in Calcium, complete with the symptoms thereof, have shown an improvement in their Ca-deficiency diseases by eating dairy products or taking supplements. Those folks might be biologically inferior according to some standard, but our Creator wanted us to live in spite of our stupidity in caring for our bodies; so he gaves us a second chance, leading us to discover Ca-rich foods & to devise methods of preparation to inactivate the oxalic acid. Not the optimum scenario, but when we close a door God opens a window.