I had to add "censored" back to my diet. Not in large doses, but I needed some. I decided it wasn't wise to be sticking to an unproven, dogmatic approach, just because a wrinkly old man with a chiseled chin told me so.

I started on a raw food diet when I was 19 years old, and I'm 33 now. 14 years of little tweaks here and there with my diet. I was full-on vegan for the better part of 7 years. Did lots of damage to my body. Developed gallstones, lost 3 teeth (and had 12 other cavities for a total of 15 cavities), developed a horrendous anxiety disorder (from the constant blood sugar fluctuations), was B12 deficient, suffered from muscle tics/twitches constantly, hands often went numb, mood swings, depression, and so on, and so on. Too many symptoms to even mention from my 7+ years of raw food veganism.

What I realized over the course of my journey was that we're all unique and have different dietary needs. I have met people who have been happy, healthy, energetic raw food vegans for 10+ years. Some people who have been 80-10-10 for a long time too. Before Doug Graham even coined the phrase. And I have met a ton of people who failed miserably, and became sick from the diet. Fanatics like Harley and Doug Graham will claim people "did it wrong" or they didn't get enough sleep, train hard enough, or some other ridiculous excuse. The fanatics just can't seem to accept that a raw vegan, or an 80-10-10 diet doesn't work for everyone.

I always stress the concept of individuality. There's no such thing as a one size fits all dietary approach. To suggest there is, is irrational, illogical, and dangerous. I got the chance to interact with thousands of people at various health expos, conferences, and lectures over the years. I enjoyed hearing stories from people from all walks of life. I lost track a long time ago, how many times people told me very similar stories to mine.

I'm on this board today because I googled my name and this website came up, lol. There were a few posts addressed to me from a year or two ago that I never responded to, so, here you go.

To all of the happy, healthy raw foodists out there, enjoy it! To those struggling, look inside yourself for answers. Remember, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results! Kind of cliched, but it's true. Half of you on this board will never be healthy on this diet. It's not a sin to eat a non-raw diet, guys!

Peace!

Best,
Mark

Prana Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> 80/10/10 is an excellent diet,

Why do you say that?

What about eating fruit and vegetables that have been bought from shops and farmers markets...surely it must be difficult to get good levels of vitamins, minerals and fatty acids when the food for most people wouldn't be freshly picked and therefore lacking the nutrition of fresh food? lt's hard enough to get good nutrients in the modern age because of stress and pollution etc...even people on the most nutritious sprout diets can have problems during times of hard work and stress, so how must folks go when they buy their produce from shops???

And how do people go with bloodwork? Not bloodwork like most doctors do, but real testing that tests for absorption. How many non spiritual 8-1-1 folks are actually absorbing adequate amounts of nutrition?? l can understand how some non spiritual people can live off high fruit diets and other natural hygene diets, but it blows my mind how so many people are eating such a diet that largely involves shop bought foods that aren't at the peak of freshness. l can fully understand highly spiritual people eating such a diet, but 8-1-1 seems so advanced for this day and age that it seems almost impossible in the current conditions of high stress. lf people really are doing such a diet, all l can think is that they must be almost breatharian to be able to pick up the skerics of nutrition left in the diet.

People use the silly cronometer and say that they get all their nutrients from such a diet, but does the cronometer measure freshly picked food, week old food or two week old food? lt all makes a BIG difference and you can't go getting false security by relying on the cronometer.

8-1-1 makes my head spin. How are mear mortals doing such an advanced guru diet and not suffering malnutrition????? Brian Clement has tested many natural hygene folks over the years and most are deficient in some nutrients, so how are 8-1-1 folks any different?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2012 09:02AM by The Sproutarian Man.

I do a similar diet that 801010 but I supplement. I would not consider it otherwise. Like you said, the perfect numbers of chronometer are not reality. I supplement with Magnesium oil (skin), Iodine, Clorella, Multivitamin, Juice, Resveratrol, Calcium, b12 skin patch, hmmm, I think thats it I am doing very well but I eat lots of supplements. I realise minerals are very important.

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People use the silly cronometer and say that they
> get all their nutrients from such a diet, but does
> the cronometer measure freshly picked food, week
> old food or two week old food? lt all makes a BIG
> difference and you can't go getting false security
> by relying on the cronometer.

How exactly "big" the difference is? Has this been documented somewhere, for veggies and fruits etc, their average levels of nutrition at the moment of collection compared to their average levels of nutrition few weeks later?

(I'm saying "average levels" because they depend on available nutrition in the soil, this applies both to mature foods and to their seeds which we then sprout)

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2012 10:36AM by chat.

p.s. i just LOVE cronometer i think it's fantastic program and I learned so much about which foods to eat and and how much and when and in which combinations, by having their detailed nutritional data at hand I think it's the best one out there, beats fitday and myfitnesspal and others because it is more detailed in some of the nutrients.

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

I have to remind everybody that 80/10/10 is NOT all about fruit........
10% of your calories from greens is still a HUGE amount of greens. What do people eat when fruit is out of season, Hmmmmmmm, maybe greens!!!!
80% of our calories from fruit seems high, but we are comparing different calorie densities. imagine eating 10 bananas and 4 oranges, and a pound of grapes in a day. BUT the equivalent amount of greens to fit the 80/10/10 ratio is about 1-2 lbs of salad greens!!! DO YOU eat a whole tub of baby greens every day? how about 3 Bunches of kale every day?? so when you realize how much you actually need this is not just a high fruit diet. its just a high fruit diet when refferring to calories. if we were to define this diet using volume instead of calories, then it would be called the 45/50/5. meaning 45% of the diet comes from fruit by volume. 50% comes from greens, and only 5% or less comes from fats by volume.
this probably helps people understand the diet better. The problem I see arising is everyone starts to debate whether a fruit diet is healthy, etc etc....this isn't a fruit diet per se.......not unless you count greens as fruit.
lets get the info straight everybody!!! 80/10/10 refers to calories!!! greens don't have many calories, so it takes a LOT of greens to make up 10% of a 3000 calorie diet! and keep in mind it never hurts to eat even MORE greens!!
yes humans evolved to eat hella fruit!! NO candida won't be a problem for you, its been tested and proven already! It will cure diabetes, thats also proven!! no worries...................

The Raw Lion 440 pounds to 225 pounds!

That's true the above! I've realised that my diet is close to 80/10/10 without me intending it to be so, it's just naturally became this way while I was trying to follow food combining and calorie restriction principles while maintaining adequate nutrition (some task!!!) So at the moment it is around 70/10/20(fat), and I eat fruit once a day, in the morning as my breakfast: some fruit in a green smoothie, plus two or three additional fruits or a fruit juice. That's all, the rest of the 70% calories come from veggies

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

The Sproutarian Man--->"Prana Wrote:

> 80/10/10 is an excellent diet,

>Why do you say that? "




811 has a very high failure rate. Prana himself said, like many others, that he isn't on the diet anymore.

chat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> How exactly "big" the difference is? Has this been
> documented somewhere, for veggies and fruits etc,
> their average levels of nutrition at the moment of
> collection compared to their average levels of
> nutrition few weeks later?


Well HHI have used worldclass bioenergetic scientist Dr Val Hunt to test the nutrition of sprouts, vegetables and how vegetables deteriorate very quickly when picked from the ground. There IS a huge difference between fruits/vegetable nutrition when it is immediately picked and eaten v's when the produce is picked and sold in a shop 1 or 2 weeks later, so yes, the science is there.

Eg, when an orange is picked it loses 80% if vitamin C within five days. But even more importantly it would be losing phytonutrients, hormones, enzymes etc.

But besides from this, the biggest issue is that shop sold fruit needs to be picked before it is ripe, so basically you are eating something which looks like fruit, but it isn't quite fruit because nature hasn't undergone all the steps to make it proper health giving food, bananas are the main culprit. Because of this reason, l find that most fruits are not so good (especially the dreadful shop sold banana which isn't fit for mankind), but apples seem to do o.k, but not great.

l feel some benefit from tree picked fruit, but don't feel hardly any benefits from fruit which has been picked days before with the exception of the apple. My sproutarian friends feel the same, especially with bananas. l honestly don't understand how people are thriving off such a diet, BUT...something must be going on so they can. Maybe the successful people recycle nutrients or/and absorb well and manufacture nutrients themselves and go against the general science. But the real test is after 20 years on such a diet, that's how long it can take for some deficiencies to start up...l just hope it's promotors are honest enough to speak out if that happens. All people want is some truth in the raw vegan movement, not the fantasy [as is often the case].



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2012 02:01AM by The Sproutarian Man.

RAWLION Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to remind everybody that 80/10/10 is NOT
> all about fruit........
> 10% of your calories from greens is still a HUGE
> amount of greens. What do people eat when fruit is
> out of season, Hmmmmmmm, maybe greens!!!!
> 80% of our calories from fruit seems high, but we
> are comparing different calorie densities. imagine
> eating 10 bananas and 4 oranges, and a pound of
> grapes in a day. BUT the equivalent amount of
> greens to fit the 80/10/10 ratio is about 1-2 lbs
> of salad greens!!! DO YOU eat a whole tub of baby
> greens every day? how about 3 Bunches of kale
> every day?? so when you realize how much you
> actually need this is not just a high fruit diet.
> its just a high fruit diet when refferring to
> calories. if we were to define this diet using
> volume instead of calories, then it would be
> called the 45/50/5. meaning 45% of the diet comes
> from fruit by volume. 50% comes from greens, and
> only 5% or less comes from fats by volume.
> this probably helps people understand the diet
> better. The problem I see arising is everyone
> starts to debate whether a fruit diet is healthy,
> etc etc....this isn't a fruit diet per
> se.......not unless you count greens as fruit.
> lets get the info straight everybody!!! 80/10/10
> refers to calories!!! greens don't have many
> calories, so it takes a LOT of greens to make up
> 10% of a 3000 calorie diet! and keep in mind it
> never hurts to eat even MORE greens!!
> yes humans evolved to eat hella fruit!! NO
> candida won't be a problem for you, its been
> tested and proven already! It will cure diabetes,
> thats also proven!! no worries...................

there seems to be a lot of talk about calories when mentioning the 80-10-10 diet. Why is that, is it because it's a diet designed for high activity such as endurance sports?

calories are just a way to measure intake of diet. calories define energy levels. humans run on energy, therefore we can measure our intake of food using calories. it is the easiest most logical way to measure our diets. volume is a horrible way to measure food intake as different foods have massively different energy levels in them. Like a cup of oil versus a cup of kale. HUGE!!!

everybody can benefit from 80/10/10........not just athletes. BUT why can't everybody be athletic!? I sure do and am !!!! if you are sedentary, OK, just adjust your food accordingly.

calories are important because too many people see 80/10/10 as a ratio of volume, as it appears that way. people don't see calories as easily.

people call 80/10/10 a frui diet.....nope. fruit is just 1/3 of diet.

Sproutarianman, u r puzzled by 811 because u make a myriad of false assumptions. Too many to get into, and youll just argue with my statements anyway.

One thing though. I have seen one of bc assessments of a high fruit eater and his alleged discovery of deficiencies
Was rubbish.
Notice we dont see bc showing his personal
Results either.

Ive been doing this for 30 years, not 100% but close
What do u want, 40 years? 50?
Doesnt count if ive been 98% rv?
I need to be 100% to prove anything?

What is this about "feeling benefits?"
sure some fruit tastes better just like veg but
U cannot feel "benefits"

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well HHI have used worldclass bioenergetic
> scientist Dr Val Hunt to test the nutrition of
> sprouts, vegetables and how vegetables deteriorate
> very quickly when picked from the ground. There IS
> a huge difference between fruits/vegetable
> nutrition when it is immediately picked and eaten
> v's when the produce is picked and sold in a shop
> 1 or 2 weeks later, so yes, the science is there.
>
> Eg, when an orange is picked it loses 80% if
> vitamin C within five days. But even more
> importantly it would be losing phytonutrients,
> hormones, enzymes etc.


Has this been documented anywhere??


Unless it has, I find it difficult to believe, with respect. Even when you cook veggies/fruits, many of them retain a lot of the goodness originally reported in nutrient databases. Vitamins, minerals, and even phytonutrients. And we are talking *cooking* here, very high temperatures, water dilution and so on.

So compared to that, how can couple of weeks off-the-tree time make such a "huge" difference to the original concentration of vit/min/etc?? Very very doubtful, I would suspect if there is a difference, it would be negligible. But I stand corrected if there is the evidence to the contrary, as I said, just difficult to believe.

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2012 05:21PM by chat.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sproutarianman, u r puzzled by 811 because u make
> a myriad of false assumptions. Too many to get
> into,

please do tell.

chat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well HHI have used worldclass bioenergetic
> > scientist Dr Val Hunt to test the nutrition of
> > sprouts, vegetables and how vegetables
> deteriorate
> > very quickly when picked from the ground. There
> IS
> > a huge difference between fruits/vegetable
> > nutrition when it is immediately picked and
> eaten
> > v's when the produce is picked and sold in a
> shop
> > 1 or 2 weeks later, so yes, the science is
> there.
> >
> > Eg, when an orange is picked it loses 80% if
> > vitamin C within five days. But even more
> > importantly it would be losing phytonutrients,
> > hormones, enzymes etc.
>
>
> Has this been documented anywhere??
>
>
> Unless it has, I find it difficult to believe,
> with respect. Even when you cook veggies/fruits,
> many of them retain a lot of the goodness
> originally reported in nutrient databases.
> Vitamins, minerals, and even phytonutrients. And
> we are talking *cooking* here, very high
> temperatures, water dilution and so on.
>
> So compared to that, how can couple of weeks
> off-the-tree time make such a "huge" difference to
> the original concentration of vit/min/etc?? Very
> very doubtful, I would suspect if there is a
> difference, it would be negligible. But I stand
> corrected if there is the evidence to the
> contrary, as I said, just difficult to believe.

what i'll do is get the results from the person themself who did the testing and made the statement. l'll contact Dr Hunt and post her comments and ask for her links in any scientific journals. Dr Clement quaotes her research regularly, but l will get the photocopies to prove it beyond a doubt.

l'm in the middle of looking up various studies in scientific and medical journals. This is time consuming, but l need to do this so l have definite proof to back up what l say. l am not interested in winning arguments, l just want photocopies of solid research to back up what l say.

l like forums like this because it allows me to gage the general thinking on issues such as this, and it lets me know what research l need to do to properly gain credibility in promoting the sproutarian diet. l don't want to be all theory and quote studies, l need to take it further and show the studies in detail so l am taken seriously.

Too many fancy theories and not enough guts in raw food arguments, but l aim to change that.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sproutarianman, u r puzzled by 811 because u make
> a myriad of false assumptions. Too many to get
> into, and youll just argue with my statements
> anyway.
>

l am open minded about being wrong. l welcome the opportunity to learn. l might argue with you, but not for the sake of being right, it is for the sake of discussion. lf your logic and facts outshine mine then it's something l need to think about. Nothing worse than an ignorant raw fooder who refuses to change his views because of his pride...we need to be open to new ideas despite the discomfort it may have on our egos, we must consider all the circumstances so we can come up with enhanced understands of the situations.

Bring it on, shoot my arguments down, l wanna hear what you have to say because l don't know it all.

So many raw food leaders are stuck with such a narrow view point (all theory), but l don't wanna be that guy, l wanna be a raw food machine with all the facts, but it will require countless hours of research at the various universities to make this happen...so giving up my life two days a week all day reading and reading and reading for years, but l am up to it because l am on a mission. The raw vegan movement needs proper crdibility, and l aim to help achieve this.

l have HUGE plans for this, not just journal research, but getting Hippocrates Health Institute and Gerson Institute and others to set up proper documented clinical research studies with as many double blind stuudies that can be managed. We need to convince the world and l am sure we can do well if these institutes put in the extra effort into proving detailed studies. These institutes do amazing work, but they need to document things much better, so that's the role l have appointed myself to do...we have gotta pull the bull by the horns and make this happen so the institutes are taken seriously.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2012 03:17AM by The Sproutarian Man.

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Cousens suggest up to
> 40-50% fat is ok.

Yes, l feel he is probably on the right track. High predigested fats (fatty acids), high predigested protein (amino acids) and high predigested carbs (carbs which have undergone further digestion into simplier forms). Dr Clement calls it the 90-05-05 diet.

The thing which concerns me is the high failure rate on the 80-10-10 diet. Why is that? Surely a diet should be easy to follow. Maybe the diet isn't for everybody. Maybe the diet isn't properly balanced so it's quite risky? l don't know, but something seems amiss. ls it really based on proper science, not according to Dr Clement and the research he has done with Dr Valerie Hunt. 80-10-10 sounds good on the surface, but does it help most people get healthy or only certain people?

You don't get athletes and ordinary folk having these problems on the Hippocrates diet. 80-10-10 has lots of complaints.

well, the 811 diet has some good thigs and some bad things. Good things? It does prevent eating toxins by only eating raw food. People seem to get more skinny and that sells to a large group of teenagers looking for the look. It is an unproven long term diet. It DOES need b12 supplements or the myelin layer of the brain goes bananas and people suffer all kind of mental problems. People seem more aggressive and defensive of the model of this diet. It was created on forums with a strong hand on "following the rules" or all your posts are deleted. That is, if you bring "other" explanations you are deleted. It is very parroquial. People fall from it because it punish those that don't follow the diet and the rules. In a sense people become closed minded

>811 has a very high failure rate.

beyond the fact that you have absolutely no proof of this, and that it is subject to selection bias and so many other factors, including the fact that there is a specific board for 811, and that many people "fail" on many raw diets but don't report anything....

getting to the top of everest has a very high failure rate.
now ask the people who made it whether it was a worthy endeavor.



the point of 811 is simply that in order to support oneself energy wise on a raw diet, fruit, being calorically dense, needs to predominate, then add some veggies in.
i don't know what is so radical about this.

>My sproutarian friends feel the same, especially with bananas.

what is a sproutarian?
do you eat all raw?
mostly raw?
what do you eat other than sprouts?



>l honestly don't understand how people are thriving off such a diet,

because you presume nutrient inadequacy, and have no real evidence of it.

>BUT...something must be going on so they can. Maybe the successful people recycle nutrients or/and absorb well and manufacture nutrients themselves and go against the general science.

no need for these gyrations.
and there is no general science against it.

> > Eg, when an orange is picked it loses 80% if
> > vitamin C within five days. But even more
> > importantly it would be losing phytonutrients,
> > hormones, enzymes etc.
>

that is not true.
exposure to oxygen causes decrease,
so they would be talking about the juice

" Nagy and Smoot also found that in orange juice containers, vitamin C loss was due to oxidation by a residual air layer trapped within the container during processing. The loss was faster in the first 2 weeks and was more evident at higher storage temperatures. Therefore, orange juice must be kept cool to prevent vitamin C degradation as it is excellerated at high storage temperatures."

<<< vitamin C loss was due to oxidation>>>

Speaking of Vitamin C Loss and Oxidation, I was reminded of Chapter 29 in Herbert Shelton’s book, The Science and Fine Art of Food and Nutrition, Volume II on Salads. Although the Science is outdated, the point about not cutting everything up deserves some attention. On pages 360-363, Shelton writes:

3. Salad vegetables should not be broken, diced, hashed, cut, sliced, etc. This causes vital losses by oxidation.

While we have long observed that foods lose their palatableness and undergo obvious changes upon being cut, sliced, shredded, etc., as a result of oxidation, only recently has it been shown that these measures, so popular with those who like their salads shredded and their peaches sliced, cause a loss and destruction of vitamins.

The results of some of these latest tests will help us to appreciate the value of natural foods in their natural state.

Analyses for vitamin C showed that approximately 10% of this is lost during the six minutes required to shred the cabbage and an additional loss of 4% occurs in the 10 minutes required to mix a dressing for the salad. The additional loss when the cabbage was chopped rather than shredded was 4%. The finer the cabbage is shredded or chopped and the longer it stands before being eaten, the greater is the loss of this vitamin.

Dr. Fredrick F. Tisdall of Toronto, Canada reported astonishing losses of vitamin C from foods as a result of processing. His report was made before the American Institute of Nutrition. He says the mere act of grating either raw apples or raw potatoes causes a complete disappearance of vitamin C. The mere act of chewing these foods causes the destruction of half their vitamin C. "Thank God for the tomato and the orange!" he exclaimed. "They don't act in the same way."

Other investigators reported comparable losses from other foods. For example, when Savoy cabbage is chopped it loses much of its ascorbic acid. Even the type of chopper makes a difference. One chopper destroyed thirty per cent of this vitamin in a few minutes, while a different type of machine destroyed sixty-five per cent.

Recent reports state that two British scientific workers, Doctors Frank Wokes and J. G. Organ, of Kings Langely, England, have discovered that vitamin C is destroyed by ascorbic oxidase--ascorbic acid oxidase. Ascorbic oxidase is produced in large amounts when fresh fruits and vegetables are cut. The report tells us that "being set free, through cutting, the oxidase attacks vitamin C contained in these chopped up vegetables and fruits." Then it also reports that "In tomatoes, for example, the oxidase is present in the skin. If a tomato is sliced into large pieces much less oxidase is freed than if the pieces are small."

The "report," as it comes to us through the newspaper, is a bit confused or garbled. We interpret it to mean that oxidase is present in certain parts of the fruits and vegetables and is released in the shredding and cutting processes and mixed with the general substance of the food. Coming in contact with vitamin C the oxidase causes it to unite with oxygen--the familiar process of oxidation--and, thus, destroys the vitamin C.

The British investigators found that when lettuce is shredded it loses 80 per cent of its vitamin C in one minute. Using oranges, cabbages and other fruits and vegetables in these experiments they found the same thing. They found that ripe tomatoes lost much less vitamin C than did the green ones on being chopped into small pieces. In all green leafy vegetables destruction of vitamin C was very marked. It was found that mincing of fruits and vegetables is harmful in that it deprives the body of vitamin C.

From these findings it is evident that foods lose more than color and flavor when they are chopped, grated, ground or mashed in the preparation of salads and juices, or in being cut up for cooking purposes.

These facts are expected to result in a complete re-examination of all of our vitamin-food standards. Heretofore these standards have been concerned only with the amount of vitamin in the food. They have taken no account of the actual amount of vitamin that reaches the body. The destruction of vitamins by processing and cooking, and by chewing, has been more or less ignored, especially in practice.

There is nothing new in the discovery that cutting fruits and vegetables into small pieces and permitting the air to reach them, results in oxidation. That the foods undergo changes in color, flavor and odor is apparent to all. These changes are results of chemical changes in the foods and these changes result largely from oxidation.

In 1928 when, Dr. Shelton's Health School was founded, the rule was instituted that fruits and vegetables are not to be shredded, diced or cut into small pieces and this rule is rarely varied from. Fruits are served whole, even tomatoes are served whole, or in large pieces. We have avoided oxidation of foods as much as possible. Our refusal to grate salads, slice peaches and to follow the fad of extracting juices from vegetables here at the Health School has been fully justified by the results of these experiments.

Much of the damages of foods that result from cooking are due to oxidation--heat instead of oxidase being the catalytic agent--and we have at all times served most foods in their natural or uncooked state. Every real advance in knowledge of foods confirms the wisdom of our "return to nature" in diet.

To compensate for the lack of vitamins in our conventional cooked and over cooked diet we are offered vitamin concentrates and synthetic vitamins. These things are of little to no value, are expensive and fail to compensate for all of the food losses caused by cooking.

How much better and simpler would be the use of raw foods! Better nourishment for less money and costing less time and effort in preparation may be had from raw foods. If you do not want to completely abandon cooked foods, if you still desire a baked potato or steamed spinach, make up your diet of at least three-fourths uncooked foods. Have a large raw vegetable salad with each protein and each starch meal. Do not skimp on the salad. Eat a tub of it.

Peace and Love..........John





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2012 06:42PM by John Rose.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > > Eg, when an orange is picked it loses 80% if
> > > vitamin C within five days. But even more
> > > importantly it would be losing phytonutrients,
>
> > > hormones, enzymes etc.
> >
>
> that is not true.
> exposure to oxygen causes decrease,
> so they would be talking about the juice

No!

l have come across a bunch of people who run contrary to this thinking, but most importantly the highly regarded Dr Hunt's tests have run contrary to this.

Here is an eye opener for you just for starters about the nutrient loss in store bought produce. A person begins an investigation and about 10 pages down results start coming out. Here it is:
[answers.google.com]

But it is not just that link, there are many others l have come across over the years and in books. Now, l know you folks will still want to argue against this and say i'm dreaming and that i'm wrong and deluded BUT...what l am going to do is put this topic to bed once and for all so you guys will have no leg to stand on...l am going to the University libraries and l will look up the studies, photocopy them and post them here which will clearly show that nutrients are severely lacking in store bought produce.

There is lots talk and science about this subject on nutrient loss from store bought whole foods, so lots of things appear to run contrary to your arguments. Do you really think they are making this stuff up??? Even if you still think nutrient loss in store bought food is still an illusion...in the next few weeks l will bring out the heavy artilliary (the proper studies) that will hopefully allow people to see what's really going on.

> " Nagy and Smoot also found that in orange juice
> containers, vitamin C loss was due to oxidation by
> a residual air layer trapped within the container
> during processing. The loss was faster in the
> first 2 weeks and was more evident at higher
> storage temperatures. Therefore, orange juice must
> be kept cool to prevent vitamin C degradation as
> it is excellerated at high storage temperatures."

Who is Nagy and Smoot, what do they do and what business are they in? l tried searching online but found no details about their motives.

l'll be back soon about this topic....this is going to be a beauty!!! l've got heaps on links to material demonstrating the nutrient loss in store bought food, so give me time and l will bring the goods to the table for all to see. Afterall...all we want is to cut through the illusion and get to the proper science.

And also nots let forget the testing Dr Clement has done on many natural hygenists over the years that show most are deficient in many important nutrients. l haven't linked the good dcotor here as yet because his tone towards the natural hygenists is very condescending, but besides the poor tone to his voice he does bring up wonderful information about store bought vegetables.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2012 12:59AM by The Sproutarian Man.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >811 has a very high failure rate.
>
> beyond the fact that you have absolutely no proof
> of this,

Very true, l have no proof of this. All l can go on are the many people that write about their failure on such a diet. lt just tells me that something is wrong and it needs investigation.

Give me time...l am determined to get to the bottom of this. l may even set up a website for people who failed on the 80-10-10 and get their feedback. lt might not prove anything, but it would give some good insites me thinks.
>





> what is a sproutarian?
A person who's diet mainly consists of sprouts. My diet is about 95% sprouts.

> do you eat all raw?
yes.


> what do you eat other than sprouts?
Algae, weeds, grass, flowers, sea weeds. Sometimes l will eat fruits.



> because you presume nutrient inadequacy, and have
> no real evidence of it.
Hmmm, see post above. But if that is not a promising start to my arguments, then the research in the various journals at the medical and natural health Universities should be more convincing for everyone. Give me time...l am on a mission to provide the evidence, and l am also writing to Dr Hunt about this issue also.

Panchito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People
> seem more aggressive and defensive of the model of
> this diet.

l have noticed this online too. l wonder why that is.

l also notice that folks following this diet are very very keen (maybe it's a trend?) and some folks even try to come across as experts virtually overnight and take on big guns like Cousens and Clement with very little substance in their arguments. For eg, folks say that the sugar problem issue with fruit isn't true because they don't suffer any problems from high sugar diets...but what about the people who do? And what about the medical testing at Hippocrates Health Institute that show most modern day people have some form of pancreatic disfunction?? And what about the microscope work that has shown cancer cells to hang around the fruit sugars? But hey...i'm not going to be getting too deep into that argument because it's not my area and lots of stuff runs contrary to this argument. BUT..the sugar argument does apply to many folks, but it doesn't seem to bother many folks either. On top of that, Dr Morse has claimed that he has cured people of cancer on fruit diets, so it is hard to know what to think about fruit sugar. All l know is that myself is badly effected by fruit sugar and it seems many other people are too, but other people are not effected.


It was created on forums with a strong
> hand on "following the rules" or all your posts
> are deleted. That is, if you bring "other"
> explanations you are deleted.

Do you care to explain this any further? This sounds very interesting.


> parroquial. People fall from it because it punish
> those that don't follow the diet and the rules. In
> a sense people become closed minded

Wow, just wow.



------------------------
One last quick comment. Store bought fruit and vegatbels are not as fresh as many think they are, much of it goes into cold storage. Here is a short quote from the link l provided above:

""...Much of the green produce available in the supermarket or
greengrocers is far from fresh. It is not uncommon for produce, after
harvesting, to spend several days being sorted and packaged. Once
placed in a refrigerated truck, the hapless vegetable may spend
several more days on a journey to a distribution centre, where yet
more time may be spent stored in a refrigerator. When it finally makes
its way through a supermarket checkout, the ?fresh? vegetable or fruit
may have spent a week or more in storage from the time it was picked.
Cold storage, fluctuations in light and temperature, and display
beneath supermarket lights, each cause degradation and breakdown of
nutrients.

"...Tests show that green beans, for example, lose 40 percent of their
vitamin C content in the first two days after harvesting, and within
three days of harvesting, a whopping 58 percent of vitamin C has gone.
Often foods are harvested before they are fully ripe, with the
expectation that further ripening will occur after harvest ."

l'll bring out the big daddy of material another day.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2012 01:34AM by The Sproutarian Man.

Now...the reason why l am taking such an active interest in this diet is because l see so many enthusiastic students of this diet who don't do well on this diet. They claim they eat the fruits, vegetables the nuits, seeds and all the top superfoods, but they still fail to thrive. Now that's not my issue, my issue is when they go public about their failure on 80-10-10 and say how people can't live healthfully on raw vegan foods (Denise Minger is a great example of a niave girl who bought into the dogma in most raw vegan books, and then blames the food instead of her own ignorance). The issue with this is that the public get a very negative impression of raw food vegans and think we are all deluded numbskulls.

People eat the nuts, seeds, fruits, vegetables and the superfoods, but it is no surprise that many of them fail to thrive on such an iffy diet. Why? l have already talked about the nutrient loses in store bought fruits and vegetables and the fact that most fruits aren't even ripe when picked (big issue), but HUGE health issues also occur when eating nuts and seeds (some seeds like chia are called superfoods). The problem with most nuts and seeds are that they go rancid very quickly and the health building properties are no longer there. How do l know this? l know this because l sprout the various nuts and seeds and notice how quickly they deteriorate. Eg, l sprout the worldclass Bolivian chia seeds and the seeds thrive and grow all bright green and really thick like a forest, but after a year the seeds deteriorate and the sprout rate greatly diminishes and the bright green turns a murky green. NOW...if you are consuming organic Mexican chia (many people do) then you are comsuming a substandard product because the sprouting ability of these seeds are TERRIBLE...they are almost lifeless and dead. No-one knows how bad most of our nuts and seeds are unless they sprout them. Most nuts for sale are unfit to eat because they deteriorate too quickly (3 - 4 months), so many people are eating rancid nuts because they don't eat them during the cold seasons, but people eat these foods all year around thinking that they are eating quality food.

lt is no wonder so many vegans have trouble with the raw diet and end up leaving the movememnt. As that well known raw fooder (Patrick someone) says, after 5 to 10 years most raw food vegans are no longer raw. Why is that? l think it's because they eat the store bought fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds and superfoods. How can most people thrive by eating this way??? ...dead and oxidised food...no wonder so many raw fooders fail to thrive. What about eating fresh food instead!!!..but not just fresh food, nutritious fresh food like sprouts. lt has been said that vegetables are only 1/20th as nutritious as 120 years ago, so why bother eating them? Eat vegetables for flavour, but certainly not for nutrition.

l could see something like 80-10-10 working for most people 150 years ago when people ate fresh foods grown in nutritious soil in times of low pollution and stress, but now l can understand why people are having problems with such a diet. l really feel you must be pretty special and unique to make this diet work...some people seem to thrive, but there are also stories of folks who say they are raw vegans but sneak in other foods when they experience health issues. The stories about cheating on diets may be only rumours and hear-say, but l am sure it probably goes on because it is human nature to do such behaviour to save face so we protect our egos from humiliation.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2012 02:10AM by The Sproutarian Man.

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "...Tests show that green beans, for example, lose
> 40 percent of their vitamin C content in the first two days after
> harvesting, and within three days of harvesting, a whopping 58 percent of
> vitamin C has gone. Often foods are harvested before they are fully
> ripe, with the expectation that further ripening will occur after
> harvest ."
>
> l'll bring out the big daddy of material another
> day.

Need confirmed studies on this of course.

As someone working in research, with time you get a "nose" for these things. Such as best places to start your investigation, or to test whether it is likely to be fruitful etc. And for what it's worth, I would think that because nutritional data is something which is pretty basic and fundamental and therefore of great interest and importance to a large percentage of our society (consumers, farmers, producers, marketers, health authorities, state), if there is a groundbreaking research proving much of the current nutritional data is useless (for it is useless if the difference between reported and actual is as high as 80%), it is not going to be hiding on the university's library shelves (and they are indeed dusty). Simply no chance, would be my take on it.

But by all means go and have a look, if you have time. It's just the absence of readily available data to support your suggestion regarding high losses due to off-the-tree time, coupled with readily available data on often low losses due to cooking time which is normally much harsher than off-the-tree time, make me doubt you're going to find anything.

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2012 03:03AM by chat.

p.s. I thought we have established that 80/10/10 diet need not be fruit based, but can be vegetable based instead Hence arguments against sugar would not apply to the latter.

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

chat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> p.s. I thought we have established that 80/10/10
> diet need not be fruit based, but can be vegetable
> based instead Hence arguments against sugar
> would not apply to the latter.

we have established that 80-10-10 is not just fruit based. Never have thought otherwise.

but can be vegetable
> based instead Hence arguments against sugar
> would not apply to the latter.

hmmm

chat Wrote:
>But by all means go and have a look, if you have time.

no meditating sproutarians ever have time, but i'll have to make time somehow. This is a major sacrifice, but the higher powers are telling me to do this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2012 03:51AM by The Sproutarian Man.

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> we have established that 80-10-10 is not just
> fruit based. Never have thought otherwise.


Sorry but one of your comments above was directed specifically at the fruit sugar:

"For eg, folks say that the sugar problem issue with fruit isn't true because they don't suffer any problems from high sugar diets...but what about the people who do? And what about the medical testing at Hippocrates Health Institute that show most modern day people have some form of pancreatic disfunction?? And what about the microscope work that has shown cancer cells to hang around the fruit sugars? But hey...i'm not going to be getting too deep into that argument because it's not my area and lots of stuff runs contrary to this argument. BUT..the sugar argument does apply to many folks, but it doesn't seem to bother many folks either. On top of that, Dr Morse has claimed that he has cured people of cancer on fruit diets, so it is hard to know what to think about fruit sugar. All l know is that myself is badly effected by fruit sugar and it seems many other people are too, but other people are not effected."


If 80/10/10 need not be based on fruits, but can be based on veggies, then the above is not an argument against 80/10/10, merely against 80/10/10 based on fruit. That's the only point I wanted to make.

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well... even veggies aren't such a good source of
> carbs. If anything then, grain sprouts could
> replace the fruits.

Yes, sprouts are basically super fruits anyway. Many sprouts have the same composition as fruits, but with the added benefit of much more potent nutrition via phytonutrients, hormones, vitamins and enzymes.