Original Title: Why do men on 811 look so emancipated?

The only males on 811 with a decent physique are 'gurus' which i don't trust at all.

On forums about other diets, they are always members who post 'before and after' pics, I have yet to see a male member of a 811 forum who tried the diet and got good results, all i've seen is extremely skinny guys with a 5% body fat and no muscles. I'd like to be proven wrong, don't mention Richard Blackman or anyone with a website, i want regular Joe's who aren't selling anything.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2010 03:33AM by Prana.

I guess raw foods makes you free.

cataplexy,

If you are having troubles with the raw food diet and are needing support, please ask questions of the forum. If you just want to judge and criticize what others are doing, this forum is not the right place for you to fulfill your desires.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2010 02:15AM by Prana.

I am extremely emancipated on a raw food diet and very thankful for it.

I think the poster meant emaciated. Probably a typo.

I would love to see pictures (before and after) of everyday folks to serve as inspiration when in times of need!

Omega Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am extremely emancipated on a raw food diet and
> very thankful for it.

pfft! Hoo, this thread gave me a larf. Love it.

You got that right!! We're definitely emancipated!! Lol!!

i don't understand the question

even if the person meant "emaciated"

what does an individual care if another person looks "emaciated" on a particular diet

i don't care

i only care about myself

other people's appearance is their business

not mine

other people's diet is their business as well

not mine

if a person concerned

they ought to know they have the right to modify their own diet to their own agreement

so simple

he might want a musculare physique though, simply put lack of protein is most likely one of the major reasons why. Fat also is commonly low in raw food diets unless you take care to mix foods.

people take it too personally here, hes not ripping into other peoples diet or what they look like. He may even be a bodybuilder for all we know wanting to go raw and is seeing the majority of what other raw physiques are like and abit worried.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2010 11:21AM by powerlifer.

Cataplexy:

What are YOUR experiences on the raw food diet? Sharing those POSITIVE experiences is what this board is all about. Do you have to SEE a perfect human being before you try to become one yourself? Ha! ha! Don't wait!

-David Z. mason

WWW.RawFoodFarm.com

Lack of protein, if you're getting enough calories, is impossible. Protein is in everything. If you want to be big, you lift more and eat more.

is there anyway to break the macros down on someones typical raw day, would be much appreciated.

whats the program called where you can do this online again?

There a several online calculators, nutritiondata.com one that I like.

Regarding skinny males, looks can be deceiving. It's possible to shed muscle mass without losing strength when what is really being lost is excess energy stores. Frugivores in the wild are lean but very strong--



[search.aol.com]

..not a strict 811er--

"Il mange des fruits, des feuilles et des morceaux d'écorce. Donc il est frugivore mais il mange aussi des insectes, des termites, des champignons et des feuilles d'orchidées."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2010 04:49PM by loeve.

Perhaps what most people think of as a normal weight isn't really a healthy weight. Perhaps we are supposed to look 'emaciated'. Average weight has increased so much in many western countries that the sense of 'normal' has really shifted. If you compare "Charlie and the Chocolate factory"(2005) and "willy Wonka and the chocolate factory"(1971) You see some differences in the children. The child with the label 'fat' in the 1971 version doesn't seem that fat by today's standards. They had to really dramatically increase the weight in the 2005 version to get the sense of being overweight.


""Il mange des fruits, des feuilles et des morceaux d'écorce. Donc il est frugivore mais il mange aussi des insectes, des termites, des champignons et des feuilles d'orchidées."

English translation using an online translator

"He eats fruits, leaves and pieces of bark. Therefore it am frugivore but he also eats insects, white ants, mushrooms and leaves of orchids. "

Interesting, but insects an ants are not advocated as part of living foods.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2010 08:17PM by Mislu.

normal is subjective i guess you ask 50 bodybuilders what they view a normal body as or 50 raw people and so on you'll get different answers.

i cant help feel that alot of these raw guys look abit ill at times though on the anorexic side of things and look in need of a good meal, then the next ones look a walking advert for health.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2010 08:23PM by powerlifer.

Thanks, Mislu, for translating that.

Speaking of a good meal, while vegans don't eat animals, i.e. termites, they might supplement B12, unless going on faith that if it's not in a varied diet of fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds, it isn't needed. The orangutan posted above might also eat clay and rocks (wikipedia) for minerals, and use herbs when not feeling well. They're tool users, though not a lot, which broadens what might be considered their natural diet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2010 12:15AM by loeve.

what about Fruitarian One? he has a really good physique. Don't know if that's Richard Blackman though..?

Anyways, I love this quote, from Abraham-Hicks:

'If man understood that "what I create has nothing to do with what anybody else is creating" then he wouldn't be so afraid of what others are doing.'



Free Newsletter: [bit.ly]
Facebook: [www.facebook.com]
Instagram: [www.instagram.com]
Blog: [RawFoodScotland.co.uk]

hi, you might take a look at this post on another forum. these males are dedicated to an 80/10/10 diet and train.

[www.30bananasaday.com]

>what about Fruitarian One? he has a really good physique. Don't know if that's Richard Blackman though..?<

Yes, same person. He now calls himself Jericho Sunfire though.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

The guys/girls on the 30 bananas a day web site mostly look great but don't underestimate the level of training they do. The diet alone will never produce bodies like that - (nor would any diet of course )

Yep, so true, Flipper. Most of us low-fat high-fruiters work our butts. :p

cataplexy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only males on 811 with a decent physique are
> 'gurus' which i don't trust at all.
>
> On forums about other diets, they are always
> members who post 'before and after' pics, I have
> yet to see a male member of a 811 forum who tried
> the diet and got good results, all i've seen is
> extremely skinny guys with a 5% body fat and no
> muscles. I'd like to be proven wrong, don't
> mention Richard Blackman or anyone with a website,
> i want regular Joe's who aren't selling anything.

A gentle reminder that eating for health and eating for physique are very different. You can find vegan powerlifters and vegan centennarians and n'er the twain shall meet. Early high growth of any kind, muscle or fat means an early exit. And that makes sense. Training the body for fast growth means creating condition favorable to developing cancer. Cancer thrives on a high oxygen rapid growth environment. New tissue development means new blood vessels to provide the oxygen necessary. The problem is that as Otto Warburg won his Nobel prize for this is the condition that tumors develop the best in and it's why steroids kill so many young athletes, apart from reducing the immune system, rapid cellular growth in a word is cancer. Early in, early out. If you are in this lifestyle for longevity, it's not 80-10-10 or high fat, it's total calories. Caveat. Caloric restriction has been debated on this forum with similar silly perjorative comments, (so and so looks young, etc). I don't want reignite that debate, rather only point out that biomarkers are a more reliable set of metrics than "how someone looks". What is your baseline? If the person was a smoker, he or she would look like @#$%& compared to some who had lived a health supporting lifestyle the whole way. I have said it before and I will say it again. Nature is not infallable. Natural selection is for the species, not the individual. For all of those on Living-Foods.com who continue to believe that simply following a "natural diet" for "what nature intended" will ensure your long term survivial, you are kidding yourselves. That is not what natural selection is. And if you continue to think it is in spite of the gentle reminder, I'm not going to respond to ad hominems but will respond to weight of evidence challenges in good faith. And I would remind you to read the Parable of Ross's Rats in Roy Walford's (120 year diet), the experiment (which I don't condone ethically) demonstrated that individuals will self-select behavior that best ensures survival of the species (rapid growth, rapid reproduction) at the expense of the individual. Now granted, these are rats, an R species, and we are a K species (R species = lots of individuals, lots of mortality) (K species, fewer offspring, more nuturing, higher survivability per individual and fewer individual offspring). Unforturnately for the "I can eat as much as I want"ers, caloric restriction has proven to be a benefit in K species as well as R species. And though the jury is out and won't be back until your are dead (how long it would take to conduct a randomly selected human clinical trial for caloric restriction), the weight of evidence today suggest, if you want live a long time, stop wasting time worrying about how healthy somebody looks because that tells you jack on how healthy they are. And also, don't believe that our natural condition (eating and living under evolutationary conditions) will ensure you optimal survival. It won't. (google under SIRT2 gene and "CR Way" just don't eat their diet. Eat a raw vegan equivalent. And no, I don't see any conflict with following a raw vegan and trying to live a long life. I'm just not going to be a body builder and forget the evidence. Best to you.

Paul



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2010 04:58PM by pborst.

la_veronique Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i don't understand the question
>
> even if the person meant "emaciated"
>
> what does an individual care if another person
> looks "emaciated" on a particular diet
>
> i don't care
>
> i only care about myself
>
> other people's appearance is their business
>
> not mine
>
> other people's diet is their business as well
>
> not mine
>
> if a person concerned
>
> they ought to know they have the right to modify
> their own diet to their own agreement
>
> so simple

I try not to judge appearances, but I think it's human to notice these things. I have seen both sides of the coin with raw folks: either looking "too" fleshy for this type of diet or "too" thin, to the point where they definitely resemble an anorexic. And as for the latter, I think this type of eating style would be attractive to someone who has an eating disorder. Since anorexia can be fatal and can take over one's mind, I think ignoring possible physical signs of it is not the answer, especially if you know someone who looks like that. I don't know about you, but I always want to look healthy, not like I am starving or something. (I would like to be emancipated, though...LOL!)

Paul,

Agree with the most of the rest of your post except the argument about cancer re: oxygen. Cancer is oxygen averse and angiogenesis is initiated by glucose starvation, not oxygen, in a blastocyst.

And as for the OP: everybody cries for freedom!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2010 08:44PM by Tamukha.

warburg has to be one of the most misquoted people in history, he never said cancer was caused by lack of oxygen, more so that cancer cells are anaerobic, and will continue to ferment regardless of whether oxygen is present or not.

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Paul,
>
> Agree with the most of the rest of your post
> except the argument about cancer re: oxygen.
> Cancer is oxygen averse and angiogenesis is
> initiated by glucose starvation, not oxygen, in a
> blastocyst.
>
> And as for the OP: everybody cries for freedom!


Tamukha,

I stand corrected. Cancer is oxygen adverse. But Warberg believed that cancer started through sugar fermentation which makes limiting blood sugar critical and why there are so many folks with diabetes and cancer. [en.wikipedia.org]

Paul,

I thought we were on the same side of the debate ; )

Loeve,

"Speaking of a good meal, while vegans don't eat animals, i.e. termites, they might supplement B12, unless going on faith that if it's not in a varied diet of fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds, it isn't needed. The orangutan posted above might also eat clay and rocks (wikipedia) for minerals, and use herbs when not feeling well. They're tool users, though not a lot, which broadens what might be considered their natural diet."

Orangutans are pretty amazing. They do live a life very different from the average human. How fortunate for them!
[animals.nationalgeographic.com]

I know that clay has been promoted as a healing substance for humans, for detoxification and other reasons. Although some question its value. Humans consume ground up rock for various reasons also. For detoxification or as a nutritional supplement. Humans also use herbs when they aren't feeling well. I doubt that orangutans consciously seek out sources for b12.

Powerlifter,
"normal is subjective i guess you ask 50 bodybuilders what they view a normal body as or 50 raw people and so on you'll get different answers. "

That is part of the point I attempted to make. With the average weight in western countries being higher, (compared to previous decades)the sense of 'normal' certainly has changed.

The term 'normal' may also be loaded. Maybe its different than 'average'. Its certainly different from 'ideal' and 'perfect'. Also if you ask what is 'healthy' you may get a completely different answer as well.

Medically doctors have a pretty good idea of a healthy weight based on statistics for each weight,height, age and gender. Thats not completely perfect, as it doesn't take into account percent of body fat. The other part that isn't so great is perhaps natural human variations in body type. I think I should be small framed based on a few measurements, but most people consider me 'stocky' even when i have been in shape with a low percent of body fat.

Another factor could also be how a person got to be that particular body weight, how long, and perhaps other factors. It would be interesting to perfect the science of health to account for everyone at every stage of life.

cataplexy,

What about women becoming emaciated on any diet/lifestyle? Why is that NOT a concern?