Mislu--

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

Because our society's standards of beauty are all screwed up, and women are brainwashed into believing that being size 0 and looking nearly anorexic is sexy and beautiful.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

"Original Title: Why do men on 811 look so emancipated?"
...Last edit...by Prana.


Thanks for explaining the new title of the thread. I wonder if cataplexy intended to use the word emancipated as a play on words to lighten the tone of the opening post. Maybe he/she will tell us...

Yes I thought so! Its true, many women have starved themselves for beauty. But I have read about a surge in men getting anorexia. Who would have thought that would ever become a problem.

"many women have starved themselves for beauty"

I'd say "perception of beauty" there.

I don't really understand the new subject line for the post. Might it actually be a bit more negative than the original, which could be interpreted as simply an honest and direct question?

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2010 07:28PM by kwan.

kwan,

It really takes the thread in a whole 'nother direction, as in, "What is the matter with me that I feel this compulsion to negatively assess 80/10/10ers?" Of course, this is not something any of us can answer for cataplexy, and may even be a bit too self-critical of him/her. Alas, I have contributed to the continuence of a thread that I'd hope would be ended by now, so, adieu . . .

I am assuming that the moderator changed the subject line. I could be assuming too much by thinking cataplexy did not make the change. So if I started a thread, I could expect it might be changed?

i guess thats the way this world has become vain, over-critical of others and more vain. I cant help but at least admit im a very vain individual so much so that anything with my appearance hurts me and i cant stand on all fours and say that it affects me majorly and very negatively.

its not 80/10/10ers in particular its how everyone looks at others these days really, if alot of us went to bodybuilding forums alot would say they look like freaks which is just as bad as being told someone looks anorexic.

what ive found though is the raw woman generally look alot healthier than the men infact alot of them look rather buff more so than woman who bodybuild which suprised me. Alot of the guys do look rather unwell though sadly, just my opinion end of the day not meant to get up anyones nose as ive seen 80/10/10ers who look rather well but all of these who ive seen ive not seen how long they have being doing the diet.

The diet doesnt work for me sadly but a massive portion of my diet is raw.

I think some people's bone structure can carry off being slim better than others.

My dad's side of the family look very gaunt when they're slim, and look 'healthier' carrying more weight.

When I used to be a fitness freak, if someone suggested I looked sick and needed to put on more weight to be attractive, I would have been offended.

I remember some overweight guy making some cheeky comment like "I've seen more meat on a knitting needle", but that soughta blew over my head, what with him being the opposite end of the scale. To him, I probably looked ill. Inside I felt great and definitely wasn't sick in the slightest.

This topic bugs me. Why the need to criticize people eating 80/10/10? Can we not instead focus on the positive changes they've undoubtedly made to their lives, and how good they must feel eating nothing but the Earth's wonderful fruits, vegetables, greens, nuts and seeds?

The reason why people who've lost weight on 80/10/10 look too skinny to you is because 2/3 of the [American] population is clinically overweight. This means that the majority's BMI is off the healthy range and into the overweight area. And 1/2 of those, or 1/3 of the population, is clinically obese. This means they are in the next whole category up of fatness. In addition, eating salt causes the body to retain a lot of excess water, including in the face, which causes the definition of a "normal" look to be "puffy and bloated".

When people lose weight on 80/10/10 or any diet, they are often surprised to notice they look skinny or "no muscle". They HAVEN'T lost muscle.. they're just realizing they never had much to begin with.. In order to build and maintain muscle you have to lift weights, or at least work the muscles strenuously, regularly. No matter what diet you're on.

Why sit in judgment of men for not having enough muscle for your tastes? Do we judge women for having small or "weak" muscles? Do we judge women for working out and having big or strong muscles? Do we judge children for not having enough muscles? Of course we do none of these.

Is 80/10/10 so different from other raw vegan diets in this regard? Where are all the linked testimonials for how big and muscular all kinds of men got on other raw vegan diets?

Another point: Average Joe American, if he lifts weights and is not fat, is most likely on at least the growth hormones from the crappy factory-farmed meat and dairy he eats, or pumped up on creatine, or worse, steroids.

Being big beefy and muscular is not the goal of a raw vegan diet, unless I missed a memo. Take the judgmental finger and point it back at yourself in my opinion.

"When people lose weight on 80/10/10 or any diet, they are often surprised to notice they look skinny or "no muscle". They HAVEN'T lost muscle.. they're just realizing they never had much to begin with.. In order to build and maintain muscle you have to lift weights, or at least work the muscles strenuously, regularly. No matter what diet you're on."

+ 10,000

rawpreston,

The original post in the thread also bothered me with its judgment and criticism. Other members here besides myself saw this, and offered advice to the original poster to not care what other people look like, or another person advised to share their own positive experiences. And many others responded with humor, which always helps.

The original post is offensive and I almost deleted it. But when I changed the subject to reflect how judgmental and critical the original post was, I felt OK about leaving this thread here, so people get a chance to see how judgmental and critical some people can be.

Yeah it's ok, I think I got some good points off my chest. Your initial reply did crack me up Prana

I'm not on 8-1-1.

Could it be that the criticisms/observations of 8-1-1 seem a little more justified for those who aren't doing 8-1-1, and a little less justified for those who are?

From my point of view, when criticisms of a particular raw food diet are not aimed at an individual on the board, I don't see anything wrong with those criticisms. There's no reason really for other people who have different ideas to be offended - as long as the criticisms aren't aimed at them personally.

Of course, it's good not to intentionally hurt people, but it's also good to learn how to not be easily hurt. We can do that by honoring others' opinions, even when we disagree with them.

I suppose food is a very personal thing.

Hopefully, we're all continuing to learn and grow. If we're open to that, it seems we could think about what we read, state our counter reasons/observations as they are, and then move on.

Although I don't follow 8-1-1, I've experienced many criticisms of my own version of raw food diet. Some criticisms have been very helpful and some have not. All are welcome, because who knows when I might learn something?!

Many people's diets here have been criticized both constructively and not. Their diets may not have a famous name, but it's their diet just the same. This appears to be perfectly acceptable here, and I personally think that's fine.

cataplexy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do men on 811 look so
> emancipated?
>

It seems obvious cataplexy meant 'emaciated', and that English may be a second (or third) language to him. I give a lot of credit to such posters and hope they don't mind being poked fun at and having their thread title replaced by the moderator (a first, I believe, on this forum) and, well, let's face it, the opening post had quite an attitude, though not unlike many critical of other diets and 'gurus' in the past. It just hit a little too close to home.

Welcome to the board, cataplexy.

As for why 80/10/10ers *might* look emaciated, the diet can be low calorie. Doug Graham is comfortable with 3-9% caloric fat, 3-9% caloric protein and 3% body fat, all stretching the limits of conventional wisdom.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2010 02:54PM by loeve.

In addition to the problem I mentioned in my prior post about confusing a "lean look" with health, I think the other problem with trying to make a judgement about a diet like 80-10-10 based on a few examples is that you don't know representative they are or what other factors in the individual's lifestyle might be responsible. Assume for example that 100,000 people are following some form of 80-10-10 in the world, if I were to look at 3 or 4 people following the diet and thought they looked underweight, setting aside the problems of appearance as a proxy for health, I couldn't be sure how representative a sample of 3 or 4 would be for the diet as a whole. Subjectively just looking at some of the 8-1-1 practioners from Australia I've seen on other boards, there is not ematiated individual in the bunch. They looks lean, muscular and strong. But how much of that is 8-1-1 and how much physical activity, who can say. I know from the mistatements about CR practioners that the way one or two individuals look isn't a reliable signal of health for me.

Paul

Its interesting to see who is defending this original post.

The original post is one of those leading question with a negative judgment and criticism implied of the target of the question. It like the question "Are you still beating your wife?". In both these questions, it is assumed that a negative quality exists about the target of the question, and it puts the person who answers on the defense.

In the past, there have been tons of this kind of negative energy, and I have certainly done my share to contribute to it. But now I am going the other direction, which is I am doing my share to remove this energy. People who want to engage in bringing this kind of energy to the forum can expect action from me, rather than words.

This time the action was to change the subject. With this action, every times this thread comes to the top, I am certainly amused. But I'd rather be amused than disturbed or angry. I don't know if its better to do what I did, or to do what I wanted to do, which is to delete the entire thread.

suncloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not on 8-1-1.
>
> Could it be that the criticisms/observations of
> 8-1-1 seem a little more justified for those who
> aren't doing 8-1-1, and a little less justified
> for those who are?
>
> From my point of view, when criticisms of a
> particular raw food diet are not aimed at an
> individual on the board, I don't see anything
> wrong with those criticisms.

Criticisms are perfectly fine, as long as they're actually legitimate. And hopefully those criticizing it have actually read the book and tried it out so they at least understand it. Ever hear of "don't knock it til you try it"? Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, and are free to follow whatever diet they choose. Personally I feel the opposite of the original post.. that people on 80/10/10 tend to look healthier than high-fat raw vegans. But if being sedentary and having more fat on one's frame suits them, I say roll with it.

What if I started a post that said "Why are people who don't do 80/10/10 so fat?"
Do you see how that could be less than helpful?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2010 07:41PM by rawpreston.

loeve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> As for why 80/10/10ers *might* look emaciated, the
> diet can be low calorie. Doug Graham is
> comfortable with 3-9% caloric fat, 3-9% caloric
> protein and 3% body fat, all stretching the limits
> of conventional wisdom.

I'd like to point out that 3% body fat is on the very low end of Doug's "Healthy/Athletic" category, for MEN, which is 3-9%. Comparable range for women is 13-19%. His "Marginal/Sedentary" range for men is 10-14% and women 20-24%.

And as far as the carb/protein/fat ratios, Doug Graham is not out on a limb there. He didn't invent 80/10/10, he just pioneered a raw version. You might want to look into the works of someother doctors: McDougall, Fuhrman, Essylstyn, Ornish, Barnard, Campbell to name a few.

Rawpreston, I do agree that the original title has a negative tone. I think you are right about that, as is Bryan. But it's also fair to point out that the post is not directed at an individual - just a diet. And it's not directed toward all raw food diets, just one raw food diet.

I have an opinion about whether or not the title should have been replaced, but at the same time, I'm aware that it's not my call. Definitely, I think there might have been a better way to phrase the question.

If, as you suggested, someone were to start a thread that asked, "Why are people who don't do 80/10/10 so fat?" people could be offended, or instead, they could consider the question an opportunity to respond with what they feel might be helpful information to the person who asked.

In this case, my response would be that it's not necessary to go as low as 10% fat to avoid being fat oneself. Even The 80/10/10 Diet quotes statistics of the diets of the longest-living people on earth as being 15% to 18% fat. These people are not fat themselves, and they are active over the age of 100.

In my own case, I'm 5'1" and weigh 86 pounds (of female muscle from healthy outdoor exercise and a variety of whole raw foods, including almost daily consumption of nuts and seeds. My total average macronutrient ratio is around 76% carbs/6% protein/18% fat)

If anyone cares to talk about it, I'd be very interested in knowing how long people here have stuck to a 12% or less raw fat ratio, without transgression. If anyone has gone longer than a year without transgression, and would like to share their height and weight, I would consider that to be very helpful too.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2010 09:10PM by suncloud.

Let me clarify that i would never make a post "Why are people who don't 80/10/10 so fat?" because I'm not that judgmental, I don't claim to have all the answers, and it would be a totally baseless and pointless query. I was just pointing out the flipside of the coin.

@Suncloud:
it sounds like you're doing fine at ~18% fat. You apparently keep fairly close tabs on what you eat, personally I stopped using cronometer a while back. I just eat a relatively low fat diet and a lot of fruit and greens. The truth is, fruit digests best when we eat a relatively lowfat diet, and fruit is such an amazing fuel, and there's a lot of fruit-phobia and misunderstanding in the raw world. It's unfortunate. You must eat a fair amount of fruit yourself if you're 100% raw with those ratios.

The other thing to point out about 80/10/10 (which people would know if they read the book) is there's nothing that says that every bite and every meal must be under 10% fat. In fact many of the menu sample days in the book come in >10% fat. The goal is ~10% fat (or lower) over a LONG period of time, like a year. For every day you eat no overt fats at all, the next day you can go that much over 10% fat and still average 10% for the long term. Or if in the summer when it's hot and you're active and you go periods with no overt fats at all, then you can have a few splurge weeks in the winter and eat some fats. It's all good.

PS: I am 5'11 150lbs and I've actually been gaining weight (muscle) since going on 80/10/10, after a stint of losing weight upon first going raw. I lift weights and bike a lot. I've been mostly 80/10/10 for maybe 9 months. I've had some transgressions, hey I grew up in WI eating cheese and meat my whole life. I don't think my transgressions have anything to do with 80/10/10 itself, raw is just a different way of eating and I don't know anyone else who eats raw food.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2010 11:30PM by rawpreston.

Cataplexy,
Hope you don't mind, I googled your sig--

cataplexy (medical dictionary)

<neurology, psychiatry> A sudden loss of muscle tone that may be induced by severe mental shock or as an additional feature of narcolepsy.

..maybe you've been touched in some way by the disorder and are looking for the right diet?

Is this it?

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2010 11:57PM by loeve.

Thanks for your post Rawpreston.

Although I do eat lots of fruit and thrive on it, I'm open to the notion that some people may do better on more greens and less fruit. I really don't know.
Raw food vegan diet is not new for me, but it's still new in terms of the amount of verifiable research available on a large raw population.

It's very hard for me to be open to the notion that everybody should restrict their fruit consumption!

For me, too much fruit is any quantity of fruit that's more than what I have a desire to eat.

Too much nuts/seeds/fats/coco/greens/grains is any quantity that decreases my energy level. Way too much is any quantity that makes my stomach feel bad!

Those seem to be my best personal guidelines. I go to an online nutrient calculator occasionally to check up on this or that. But I never weigh my foods or count calories. I do weigh myself.

I stray from my own goals, which are usually very short-term. It doesn't bother me when that happens, because I only stray within specific parameters that
I never cross. I always stay raw and vegan. I feel I can handle any kind of all-raw stray, and make up for it easily through exercise or a short fast.

Interesting about 80/10/10. Might be that when someone doesn't follow it consistently, it's due past habits, lack of support, or some emotional need. Or there could be other reasons worth considering.

Sounds like your attitude is somewhat flexible, and I think that's good.

Loeve, the video! Thank you for posting it.

suncloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> some people may do
> better on more greens and less fruit.

There isn't much of a continuum between high fruit <==> high greens though, since greens don't have enough calories to primarily sustain us. No one gets the majority of their calories from greens. Who eats more than 2 pounds per day of greens? That's 200 calores. I eat a pound per day and I think it's plenty. The contentious continuum in question is between carbs and fat.

Rawpreston, yes, you're probably right. Seems like 2 pounds of greens per day is already pretty high. Maybe someone eats more greens than that, but I'll rephrase my statement:

".......some people may do better on less fruit (than what I eat or what 80/10/10 recommends)."

> Loeve, the video! Thank you for posting it.

I didn't know anything about cataplexy, the condition, until googling it. I guess it's a little like narcolepsy and can accompany it. I read it can be triggered by embarrassment, so in the video the laughter at the young man with the condition would lead to more symptoms then more laughter etc, etc.. I think the video gets the point across and that these young men are getting the message out there in their own way.

By the way, a massive earthquake in Chile this morning has resulted in Tsunami warnings across the Pacific which I'm sure you are waking up to. Wishing you the best out there.

"The Fruitarian One" wasn't really a raw foodist when he started posting a lot of his pics online. You can tell when he really started getting into raw foods, because he kept getting skinnier and skinnier. Last I saw of his pics, he looks athletic and fit, but thin.

Most raw food vegans tend to be emaciated, and/or extremely thin. I find that most raw foodists switched over because of illness, or a life of excess. Very few people come into raw foodism, who were pretty healthy to begin with. It happens, but not often.

With that said, I know of very, very few raw foodists who are strong, muscular, and look good. Most are indeed on the skinny side, and that's fine. As long as you feel good about yourself, who cares? I tend to think of a bit of muscle and weight on a person looks good, but to each his own.

For myself, I wasn't comfortable being 6'1" and 155 lbs on raw (as I once was). I had to put on 40 lbs of muscle to be happy, which I did, through LOTS of trial and error. I had no one to follow, since no one I know had done it before me. Stephen Arlin, who now calls himself Thor Bazler, just got big and fat, but I didn't care for that look. He may have been strong at one point (and probably still is), but he got big and fat, rather than muscular.

Best,
Mark

I think part of the problem in this question is actually the definition itself. What IS emaciated. I've actually never seen anyone who is raw, actually look emaciated. They look thin very often yes. But emaciated is what the folks in auschvitz looked like, or in those feed the africans campaigns to steal money.
I do feel that it is a danger to get too skinny. My girlfriend is currentl actually having that problem. BUt in reality it seems that the main issue for folks is that they just don'e eat ENOUGH when on the raw diet. You get so satisfied on raw foods that you don't feel like you need to eat so much that some folks DO. I feel that the general structure of the argument is skewed. I feel that only people who are raw are actually usuable for this study. Lots of people say that raw vegans look scary to them, but they are usually, most commonly vegetarians, and vegans who eat cooked food. As there is a tendancy to fear the raw food as much of the information in vegan foods are about what you are going to be deficient of while you are vegan. these things don't happen on raw, as long as you eat enough. Many of the malnourishment that occurs on vegan diets is from COOKING THE FOOD!!!! like the front, center stage debate/FEAR about b-12. up to 96% of the b-12 in food is destroyed when you cook it!!!! so no wonder vegans have b-12 problems. Many raw folks have their blood work done and usually if they eat well, they have b-12 levels similar to that of a meat eater!!!

the debate is all about what is EMACIATED???? DO raw vegans look emaciated?? or does everyone else look overweight and festering???

Thank you Loeve. The tsunami so far seems pretty mild. Hopefully everything will be fine.

Yes, the video was kind of unnerving. I didn't know what cataplexy was either until I read your post.