hey, for all intents and purposes, I agree with you mostly on CR, as Ive read many in depth clinical studies, I would just like to see some long term in depth studies done on humans, and it will probably be awhile for that...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Curator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ....Ive read many in depth
> clinical studies, I would just like to see some
> long term in depth studies done on humans, and it
> will probably be awhile for that...Tonya Zavasta is a study in progress. I would like to see more Raw Foodists practicing CR. The Diet must be restricted in calories, but optimum in nutrition. What I've experienced, with some success, is a Body getting smaller, but stronger.....WY

rab Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The book by Doug Graham, 8-1-1 diet, is one of the
> best books human kind produced. That is my humble
> opinion But, every person who is on any kind of
> raw vegan is doing the good thing also, and I have
> absolutely no reason to be against their views.
> For me, the main organ I care about is - my brain.
> It needs sugar. I feel great when I eat fruit. It
> is as simple as that. When I eat 3-4 lb of red
> globe grapes, I feel fantastic, my brain works
> like a perfect clock, and I am happy.

Same here, rab. I feel wonderful on fruit, and lots of it. As long as I eat at least 2800 calories each day (I'm a 5'4" female), I feel great. I workout 5x per week doing HIIT and I play tennis 5x per week, with energy to spare!
>
> Now, I can understand that there is a low calorie
> diet that would make me live longer, possibly. I
> am not sure if the comparison is correct, but
> gorillas eat more green than chimps. Gorillas are
> bigger, their hair looks healthier than chimps.
> But, chimps are smarter! They look for fruit more
> than anything.

When given the option, even mountainous gorillas prefer fruit over greens, bark, etc.

> Also, if humans were really active (gardening
> requires a lot of work, so does foraging,
> including the mileage), they would need a lot of
> calories. Only "modern" life can accommodate for a
> low calorie diet - living in a city, buying
> instead of growing food etc. If city life is your
> chocie, I am fine with that. It is just not how I
> feel about it - I think EVERY HUMAN BEING should
> grow something.

This is an excellent point. We would never restrict calories in nature, but instead try to acquire and eat as much food as we could.

> I wanted to add this - please do not fight and
> make such a big difference between high and low
> calorie diet - it is a great world, and people are
> different.
> Long live the differences! (We need to be able to
> love even the "normal" people, who are on the SAD
> diet, remember!?)

Amen. If people want to restrict calories, fine for them. I just know for me and people like me who want to lead active lives, calorie restriction is not the answer. I eat as much fruit as I want every single day. If I don't, I don't feel well and cannot perform at my best.

And remember, we are not talking about eating mountains of SAD foods. Restricting on a Westernized diet is definitely going to be a better option because you are taking in less toxic foods. Raw fruits and tender greens require very little digestion by the body, even in large quantities.



Swayze
[www.fitonraw.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2010 01:15PM by Swayze.

Swayze Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is an excellent point. We would never
> restrict calories in nature, but instead try to
> acquire and eat as much food as we could.
That would depend on one's Lifestyle....active or meditative. Can you picture a Buddhist Monk eating 20 Bananas a day?.....no!! He's sitting somewhere with his eyes closed. I understand pure buddhists don't eat after 12 noon....WY

Wheatgrass Yogi, I absolutely agree. Christian Orthodox monks also fast more than half of the year (no meat, dairy, eggs, no oil often, and often water only). So, they may be interested in CR style of living. Even though I respect people who devote their life to spiritual, soul living, I don't see myself going that way. That is the road for the chosen few, I think.

Wheatgrass Yogi, I was speaking more of pre-modern man. If your life revolves around survival, you aren't going to be too worried about longevity; you're just going to go where the food is!



Swayze
[www.fitonraw.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2010 12:22PM by Swayze.

I think that characterizing CR practitioners as practicing CR solely for increasing their lifespan mischaracterizes the point of the movement or perhaps understates is a better term since they do want to increase lifespan. But, that's not all they want to do. McGlothlin and Averill practice "daily limited fasting" where they only eat two meals per day to help achieve low circulating glucose (85 or less). This is to down regulate IGF1 and up regulate the SIRT gene that helps extend lifespan. The cognitive benefits and increased energy they describe is enticing. But, I agree that there is a clear difference between those who rely on natural selection for what is best for the individual vs. those who prefer a science-based approach. And whatever works fine. To date, the weight of evidence for real improved quality of life and probably extended life is with the CR practioners.

Paul

WY,

This post below is exactly why I didn't want to discuss CR on this board earlier in the thread. This is a CR thread, and we've got one fruitie talking to another frutie about about 8-1-1 instead of sticking to the topic, CR. Can you imagine if we did a thread hijack on a 8-1-1 thread on CR??? I don't think so. I would never do it out of respect in the first place. Second, creating more heat than light never brought anyone anything. Best. I will PM you to continue our conversation.

Paul


Swayze Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rab Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The book by Doug Graham, 8-1-1 diet, is one of
> the
> > best books human kind produced. That is my
> humble
> > opinion But, every person who is on any kind
> of
> > raw vegan is doing the good thing also, and I
> have
> > absolutely no reason to be against their views.
> > For me, the main organ I care about is - my
> brain.
> > It needs sugar. I feel great when I eat fruit.
> It
> > is as simple as that. When I eat 3-4 lb of red
> > globe grapes, I feel fantastic, my brain works
> > like a perfect clock, and I am happy.
>
> Same here, rab. I feel wonderful on fruit, and
> lots of it. As long as I eat at least 2800
> calories each day (I'm a 5'4" female), I feel
> great. I workout 5x per week doing HIIT and I
> play tennis 5x per week, with energy to spare!
> >
> > Now, I can understand that there is a low
> calorie
> > diet that would make me live longer, possibly.
> I
> > am not sure if the comparison is correct, but
> > gorillas eat more green than chimps. Gorillas
> are
> > bigger, their hair looks healthier than chimps.
> > But, chimps are smarter! They look for fruit
> more
> > than anything.
>
> When given the option, even mountainous gorillas
> prefer fruit over greens, bark, etc.
>
> > Also, if humans were really active (gardening
> > requires a lot of work, so does foraging,
> > including the mileage), they would need a lot
> of
> > calories. Only "modern" life can accommodate for
> a
> > low calorie diet - living in a city, buying
> > instead of growing food etc. If city life is
> your
> > chocie, I am fine with that. It is just not how
> I
> > feel about it - I think EVERY HUMAN BEING
> should
> > grow something.
>
> This is an excellent point. We would never
> restrict calories in nature, but instead try to
> acquire and eat as much food as we could.
>
> > I wanted to add this - please do not fight and
> > make such a big difference between high and low
> > calorie diet - it is a great world, and people
> are
> > different.
> > Long live the differences! (We need to be able
> to
> > love even the "normal" people, who are on the
> SAD
> > diet, remember!?)
>
> Amen. If people want to restrict calories, fine
> for them. I just know for me and people like me
> who want to lead active lives, calorie restriction
> is not the answer. I eat as much fruit as I want
> every single day. If I don't, I don't feel well
> and cannot perform at my best.
>
> And remember, we are not talking about eating
> mountains of SAD foods. Restricting on a
> Westernized diet is definitely going to be a
> better option because you are taking in less toxic
> foods. Raw fruits and tender greens require very
> little digestion by the body, even in large
> quantities.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2010 02:59PM by pborst.

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To date, the weight of evidence for real improved
> quality of life and probably extended life is with
> the CR practioners.
Thanks Paul for your input. I find it all very interesting. I've decided to try CR on my own body....2 meals a day....one at 8am, and the other at 4pm, with a Dry Fast from 4pm to 8am (16 hours). I may add a third meal at Noon if I feel the need.
Best wishes to you on your own journey.....WY

WY

PM sent. We are on our own. Let's keep in touch. Best.

Paul



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2010 03:22PM by pborst.

Paul - it's a shame you feel you don't want to discuss CR. Some of us are interested without necessarily wanting to go down that path - well I am. I am also concerned. I appreciate that you have done far more research than me but the book I am reading at the moment constantly refers to eating enough calories in order to obtain enough vitamins and minerals for optimum good health.

That was a little dramatic. I almost shed a tear.

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That was a little dramatic. I almost shed a tear.

Fruitie sarcasm after fruitie thread hijacking. More's the pity.

Jan, I think you can probably get all you need from the links provided earlier in the thread. As you can see from the fruitie trolling gone amuck on the board, this isn't furtile ground for this discussion. Best.

Paul

durianrider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You eat only 800cals a day? Your anorexic or soon
> will be.
>
> Here is a vid about calorie restriction I did..
>
> [www.youtube.com]

btw, most CRs are eating 1600 to 1700 calories per day, which is close to the raw vegan average. The difference is that I think they are trying consciously to keep circulating glucose low and down regulate IGF 1 while up regulating the SIRT 2 gene. Calories are pretty close, so I guess it's the individual foods that make the difference. Best to all.

Paul

Oh, I didn't realize you wanted to prevent certain people from giving their opinion, based on their diet. Any others you want to sequester, or attempt to?

I've seen people say they're on an optimal nutrition diet/calorie restricting. Guess what they ate during the day - like 1,100 calories of yogurt, potato chips, maybe a carrot stick or two, some bread or sandwich maybe. Hardly any nutrition. I coudn't believe it! there was a soda in there, too. Wouldn't want to waste those 1,100 calories on something healthy. :p

I think some people can do well on this shortterm, but others have no clue what healthy food intake is.

Anyone is free to give their opinion based on their diet. There is no censor. That said, if a thread is devoted to topic A, and you choose to use it to promote your diet or topic x, that's a thread hijack. Regarding your sarcasm, I think that's self-explanatory. If the shoes fit, wear them.

Paul

Oh, yeah, it was sarcastic on purpose....obviously! pretty funny, too, in my opinion. Is there a reason you felt a need to post on this thread that you sent a PM to someone and you're "on your own"? Was that relevant to the topic? did you feel the person wouldn't see your PM unless you posted as well?

I don't think giving your opinion on a topic and "promoting" as you call it (I gues because it's something you disagree with, if it were a supplement thread, that might be diff., esp. if some member on here sold the items) are mutually exclusive.

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, yeah, it was sarcastic on
> purpose....obviously! pretty funny, too, in my
> opinion.

So, you stipulate that you are comfortable being sarcastic at someone else's expense. Ok. As I said before, more's the pity.

Is there a reason you felt a need to
> post on this thread that you sent a PM to someone
> and you're "on your own"? Was that relevant to
> the topic? did you feel the person wouldn't see
> your PM unless you posted as well?

Well, to be honest, he might not have if he doesn't check PMs. So, yes, its relevant. But more to the point not at anyone's expense but my own.

> I don't think giving your opinion on a topic and
> "promoting" as you call it (I gues because it's
> something you disagree with, if it were a
> supplement thread, that might be diff., esp. if
> some member on here sold the items) are mutually
> exclusive.

It's a matter of degree. If you say "topic x doesn't work for me because I like y" and it is relatively factual, then it's not promoting, just stating how you feel. If on the other hand, you start dropping names, and specifics on why "Y" works, then that's a thread hijack and by defintion promoting the poster's perspective.

So it's fine. You are comfortable in your sarcasm, I'm comfortable in my CR. Take good care of yourself. And long life to you.

Paul



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2010 09:27PM by pborst.

I am comfortable with my sarcasm. If someone else chooses to be upset about a joke made by a stranger on the internet, that's their choice. I take no part in their choice.

I don't think I agree with your definition of a hijack, and I will continue to post where I feel appropriate.

Best wishes to you as well.

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am comfortable with my sarcasm. If someone else
> chooses to be upset about a joke made by a
> stranger on the internet, that's their choice. I
> take no part in their choice.

UL, I'm not upset. You aren't important enough to make me upset. I am just observing your behavior as part of the landscape here in making my judgment that this a hostile place to discuss CR.

If you are comfortable being sarcastic, that's fine. To me what you are saying is that you take no responsibility for your behavior.

> Best wishes to you as well.

Best

Paul



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2010 09:42PM by pborst.

reposted below.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2010 09:47PM by Utopian Life.

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Utopian Life Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I am comfortable with my sarcasm. If someone
> else
> > chooses to be upset about a joke made by a
> > stranger on the internet, that's their choice.
> I
> > take no part in their choice.
>
> UL, I'm not upset. You aren't important enough
> to make me upset. I am just observing your
> behavior as part of the landscape here in making
> my judgment that this a hostile place to discuss
> CR.



I take responsibility for my actions, not your reactions, including the attempted jab which everyone can see.

It's cool, Pborst!

Nobody is jabbing you. By your own admition you are sarcastic, comfortable with it and not taking any ownership. Ergo, you aren't taking responsibility. That's fine. It's what many put down artists do every day. Just don't try playing victim as someone who is comfortable and culpable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2010 10:04PM by pborst.

thanks for the advice, pborst. i'm sure i'll be a winner in no time if i base my actions on what you think is best.

if you think what i wrote is "victim playing" read it again. or have a couple friends do so.

No thanks. FWIW, more sarcasm on top of sarcasm just proves my point.

Your posts speak for themselves, as do mine.
If you think you have a point, you think you have a point.....

yeah, the difference is my points are on topic and not anyone else's expense.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting a CR diet program if one is leading an athletic lifestyle. I can remember running a marathon after eating very light a couple of days before. I ran completely run out of energy at the 20-mile mark (I had 'hit-the-wall' as they say in running jargon). I am suggesting that one's diet should match energy needs. Is it any wonder that the average lifespan of a Professional Football Player is 62 years? They continue to overeat after their playing days are over.
My experiment with CR on my own Body is long overdue. What you do with your Body is your own business, and I for one am not judging anyone other than myself.....WY

Well, just thought I'd throw this in there:

I think calorie restriction is fine (for adults), as long as some attention is paid to getting most of the RDA, including some of the harder-to-get raw vegan nutrients like Omega-3s, calcium, iron, zinc, and iodine.

There's a lot of research supporting the notion that calorie restriction is beneficial.

In Becoming Raw (p 79), Davis RD and Melina MS RD write, "Research indicates that a diet that is slightly low in calories but meets recommended intakes for other nutrients may reduce age-related disorders, such as diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disorders, and may extend the maximum expected lifespan. The exact degree of caloric restriction that is optimal for adults has not been determined.

"Not only might you live longer in good health by reducing caloric intake, you could even improve your memory. Certainly, when we do not overburden our bodies with excess calories and body weight, we lessen our risk of chronic disease."

The above statements from Becoming Raw include 7 references from scientific studies (including studies of low-protein/vegan diets). It kind of leads one to wonder that if the current RDA is based on "normal" calorie intake, then the RDA may be higher than necessary. Maybe we don't need to get all of the RDA. (Possibly World Health Organization [WHO] may provide more accurate nutrient targets.)

Eventually, more long-term studies of calorie-restricted, 8-1-1, and other raw vegan diets may provide us with a clearer picture of the optimal diet. Our own experiences are valuable of course, but many of us haven't stuck to one thing long enough to be absolutely sure of anything in the long-term.

And of course, we cannot wisely ignore the multitude of studies verifying the existence of nutrient deficiencies that do really occur when insufficient nutrients are consumed.

8-1-1 could perhaps be a little more efficient if the 10% of calories from fat more often came from nutrient-rich whole seeds (plus a brazil nut everyday and some seaweed), rather than from avocado or hulled seed products like tahini or white sesame seeds. Avocado is a very good food, but on a low-fat raw food diet, whole seeds become more vital.

Again, from Becoming Raw (p 129), "Make monounsaturates your primary dietary fat. This means avocados, nuts, and olives. If you're consuming less than 15 percent of your calories from fat, this does not apply, as most of your fat should come from polyunsaturated fats."

Seeds are the best source of polyunsaturated fats.

I also think it's possible that a raw food diet that includes lots of fruits (and/or possibly lots of vegetables) high in vitamins like Vitamin C, plus sufficient high quality fats from nuts and whole seeds may allow the body to absorb more of all the other nutrients, so that less intake is necessary.

But a truly healthy diet has to include sufficient whole food sources for all essential nutrients, whether the diet is calorie-restricted, fat-restricted, or whatever.

Hey, good luck with your new approach WY, and keep us posted!



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2010 12:03AM by suncloud.