80/10/10 means at least 80% from carbs, no more than 10% from protein and no more than 10% from fat. This is a numerical way of putting it. An easier way is, eat all the fruit and veggies you love.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

[itsatrap.ytmnd.com]

david

David, funny, but what does it mean? The Force is strong in this green smoothie?

I could well be a trap lol! Ever since I started eating lots of fruit, I can't stop it, it feels so good...


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Hi Utopian Life. Still there? I really like that we're able to discuss 80-10-10 and give differing views.

You had asked, "Do you know 'many people' who were unable to sustain 80-10-10?..."

I guess you're asking because of my previous statement: "...many people are unable to sustain the diet."

To be clear, I don't personally know the people I referred to. But it seems fairly common to read people's first-hand accounts. Their information about their own activities would most likely be accurate. (If someone else might disagree, that's OK.)

I do think though that the same could very well apply to other versions of a raw vegan diet - not just 80-10-10. For example, a diet that heavily restricts fruits would probably be difficult for many people to sustain (It would for me!).

I believe we desire food for 2 main reasons: body signals from habit, and body signals due to real physical need. The latter is possibly an essential component of a healthy body's autonomous nervous system, relaying a signal from a body part or parts that require specific nutrients for optimal functioning.

We can change our body's habit signals by changing our habits. But it's much more difficult to alter or eliminate body signals due to real physical need - and that's probably a good thing. Often, we humans are so removed from our natural environment, that our bodies are smarter than we (consciously) are.

For that reason, if a person's diet - any diet - is deficient, a person could become persistently hungry and begin to obsess about food. For example, a mono fruit meal - though cleansing and often beneficial - will not be beneficial all the time, because it won't supply every vitamin and mineral in sufficient quantities. (This is just meant as an example. I'm not saying that 80-10-10 promotes mono for every single meal. But it does seem true that mono is promoted in 80-10-10, with no discussion of possible problems if every meal were mono.)

In the past, I've totally stuffed my stomach to the bursting point with raw fruits/vegetables, and still felt hungry. But then if I eat a moderate quantity of nuts/seeds, I'll easily feel satisfied. I don't think my body is entirely unique (maybe a little unique). I think it may be that the nuts/seeds had the calcium/iron/zinc/selenium that my body was demanding. In fact, I probably didn't have to overstuff myself with more fruits/veggies than I had a desire for, just to try to avoid eating those evil nuts/seeds.

In my view, the information presented in 80-10-10 doesn't include enough information for obtaining essential nutrients. It seems possibly logical that the more restrictive a diet is, the more important it becomes to have some knowledge about how to obtain sufficient vitamins and minerals. In fact, the book doesn't even discuss vitamins and minerals. In my experience, vitamins and minerals don't come automatically simply by restricting prohibited foods, no matter how many calories of approved foods a person is capable of stuffing into their stomach.

When hunger sets in, a person attempting 80-10-10 might avoid sufficient quantities of the raw vegan foods that could benefit them. Possible result: off the wagon, possibly eating heavy starches or junk, possible depression, and then, possibly back to an even more extreme version of the deficient diet in an attempt to detox.

If this doesn't happen to be a person's experience on 80-10-10, then fine. If it does happen to ring a bell for anyone, then hey. (No need to go in some other extreme direction. Just a tweak here and there might perfect.)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2010 02:54AM by suncloud.

The trouble with the essential nutrients is that no one knows what the true human needs for them are, and all the minimum recommendations are merely made up averages based on samples of cooked foodists. So deriving an accurate table for 811 or other purposes is an impossibility.

However, the human body has an in-build mechanism to guide us in the selection of foods that our body needs. Science confirmed this mechanism, which one would hope to be achieved at this level of the evolution of the sciences.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Could be rawgosia; and if so, it shouldn't be necessary to overly restrict ourselves from the raw vegan foods that we really do like.

The concept of overly restricting ourselves implies the assumption of knowing what the optimum range is, which I am saying is unknown.

If one eats all the fruit and veggies they love, according to their body signals, there is no restriction. This is despite the fact that through the lenses of an outsider, a seasoned cooked foodist for example, there is a restriction. The cooked foodist's perception of the restriction is an illusion due to their inability to perceive that one can be completely happy and content eating a diet so dramatically different to their cooked diet. A similar can be said to any other foodist to whom the idea of eating fruit and veggies is foreign.

As long as one follows their senses (eg hunger) while eating raw foods, there can be no restriction however. It is when we start using our minds and ignore our senses, in order to decide what is proper to eat and how much we should eat, then the possibility of restriction is born.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

80-10-10 is a "restrictive diet" in the sense that foods consumed must average out to a prescribed calorie ratio. If people already ate 80-10-10 quite naturally on their own, we wouldn't have a book to read.

80-10-10 is an "extremely restrictive" diet to anyone who finds the diet very difficult to adhere to, and/or overly strict.

On the other hand, if 80-10-10 doesn't feel restrictive to an individual, and if the individual is following the diet effortlessly, well of course, then it's not restrictive for them! That's certainly not the case for everyone though. It's not the case for me, and I'm a very happy well-adjusted long-term raw food vegan.

As I said before, as long as people feel good on 80-10-10 and they're able to sustain it consistently, then OK. But if that's not the case, it's OK to reassess.

Rawgosia, you wrote recently that you don't follow 80-10-10. Why not?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2010 09:55AM by suncloud.

"If people already ate 80-10-10 quite naturally on their own"
They do. 80-10-10 is only a numerical way of explaining it. By simply eating fruit and veggies, one will fit under the ratios spontaneously.

"Rawgosia, you wrote recently that you don't follow 80-10-10. Why not?"
For me to follow 80-10-10, I would have to read the book and then decide that I want to follow the idea of 80-10-10 and all other related notions presented in the book. This was not the case for me however. Yes, I do eat a fruit-based diet, but I arrived at this spontaneously, and before I laid my hands on the book. Also, I am a rather free spirit and do not like constraints in the form of following some idea. I follow my instincts instead. I also like to evolve, and following prescriptions is not the way I like to go about things.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

You do sound like a well-adjusted raw vegan, I enjoyed reading your story on another thread, suncloud.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Well thank you rawgosia! I enjoyed visiting your website (great pictures)!

Your article on calorie counting is very interesting. Recently I went back to school for a degree in dietetics (to become a registered dietitian). It will take a few more years; but with your background, maybe some day we could team up for some research into raw food diet!?!

rawgosia (and lots of others who have similar attitude towards 80-10-10 “followers”):

Why do so many people believe that whoever agrees with 80-10-10 is somehow a follower, not a thinker?
That book is BRILLIANT, and whoever does not read it, is deprived of an excellent research and powerful reasoning that the book offers.

I do not agree with just one part of the book - athleticism. Doug Graham claims that "only athlete shape is good enough for men". I think that being an athlete is yet another addiction and frequent endurance testing and pushing the limit of physical strength every day is simply - not healthy. I find also one thing lacking - not even mentioned in the book - how will poor people all over the world switch to better diet? Doug Graham is, even though he is probably not aware of it, an elitist. For his kind of diet, one needs to have money, often lots of it. But, that does not mean that his diet is wrong - on the contrary! That book is one of the greatest books I have ever read (I studied literature, red a few books), and is a very important book for me and it should be for any person on a raw food diet, regardless if they agree or not with Doug.

Let's agree to disagree, but it is hard to discuss if you haven’t' even read the book??? Now, you don't have to read the book, but then don't call us, who did read it, "followers". That is very lame, uncivilized and wrong. It would be like saying “I haven’t read the ‘China Study’, but I don’t like that people quote it so often”. Maybe the book deserved to be quoted?

I understand your concern Rab, but I don't think anyone intended to imply that people who "followed" 80-10-10 were "followers".

If a person "follows" a certain diet, lifestyle, exercise program, philosophy, etc. that doesn't necessarily make the person a "follower". Someone could read a book and happen to agree with most of it. Doesn't mean the person is a "follower". It's possible even that Rawgosia was responding to my use of the word "follow" when I asked Rawgosia why she didn't "follow" 80-10-10. It wasn't my intention to imply that anyone was a follower. Sometimes things just don't come off like we intend when we're sitting here typing stuff and then sending it out over the internet.

Also, I interpreted Rawgosia's post as saying that she did read the book, but she had already arrived at a fruit-based diet before she read it. Internet can be difficult.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2010 02:55AM by suncloud.

It can be. You explained things perfectly, I have nothing to add. All is good.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

rab,

"follower" is semantics--it means one follows the regimen or system, like "I follow the Insanity Workout plan," or I follow "Dr. Martin Luther King's teachings." Those two statements don't imply lack of thought, right?

suncloud,

In my edition of 80/10/10, Doug Graham does allow for nuts and seeds, and does recommend some variety, at least in the menu plans in the back. I don't stress about the ratios; to me they're just a guideline, as everyone's nutrient needs are different.

Yes, indeed. We should watch what we write on the internet:
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------
"Rawgosia, you wrote recently that you don't follow 80-10-10. Why not?"
For me to follow 80-10-10, I would have to read the book and then decide that I want to follow the idea of 80-10-10 and all other related notions presented in the book. This was not the case for me however. Yes, I do eat a fruit-based diet, but I arrived at this spontaneously, and before I laid my hands on the book. Also, I am a rather free spirit and do not like constraints in the form of following some idea. I follow my instincts instead. I also like to evolve, and following prescriptions is not the way I like to go about things.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, as a "free spirit", have you read the book or not?

By the way, 80-10-10 is not a prescription, as it can never be proven if it should be maybe 82-9-9 or 75-12-13 or any other number. It is just a guide, a good advice. I doubt that there is one single person in this world who follows it strictly. Not one. That is why I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Tamukha, thanks so much for your input about semantics. Sometimes a person can intend for something to mean one thing, and it comes off entirely differently to someone else. That's really too bad, especially when people's feelings are hurt.

On to 80-10-10 (warning, this is a long one): I'm glad you and Rab aren't taking the 80-10-10 ratio absolutely literally, and I hope most people aren't. Graham does "allow" his readers to consume a very small quantity of nuts and seeds; but, on the other hand, he never says there's anything good about consuming them. On p. 24, Graham says nuts and seeds aren't meant for consumption (by any animal?); and in the same paragraph, he also says that humans jaws and teeth weren't designed to eat nuts.

On page 25, Graham claims that "in contrast" to nuts, high-fat fruits are easily digestible, including avocados, durians, akees, breadfruit, and olives. My own understanding is that, compared to nuts and seeds, those fruits have a completely different set of nutrients (apart from fat). High-fat fruits have their own good nutrients, but they're not good replacements for the rich array of other essential minerals found in nuts and seeds. (And as an aside, I don't think Graham has ever eaten much raw breadfruit, or he wouldn't consider them easy to digest!).

On page 25, he says, "...an occasional avocado or small handful of nuts and seeds is quite satisfying and complements our natural diet..." But what does he mean by "occasional"? Once a week, once a month, once a year? Why eat them at all? There's no explanation.

On page 116, Graham says, "Interestingly, current research in nutritional science is questioning whether ALA is actually essential, since evidence exists that the body may be able to synthesize it, as well." Really? No reference.

OK. Maybe some people don't care about "nutritional science" anyway. But when someone brings a small bit of science into a discussion just to support a point of view, that's called "cherry-picking". And when a person does that with entirely new information, and also without a reference, we could call it "cherry-picking without a cherry tree"!

The title of Chapter 8 is "The Big Surprise: Raw Fooders Average 60% Fat!"... Again, no reference.

Graham's menus allow for up to one ounce of nuts or seeds/day. But on page 252, he gives inaccurate information about how much one ounce of nuts actually is. He equates the calories of 4 ounces of almonds with 1/2+ cup almonds, leading a person to believe that 1 ounce of almonds is close to equalling just 1/8 cup of almonds (especially if a person doesn't happen to notice the tiny "+" sign next to "1/2" ). But 1/2 cup doesn't equal 4 ounces.

1/2 cup of almonds equals only 2.6 ounces of almonds . [nutritiondata.self.com]

Not everybody has a fancy food scale to weigh out one ounce; a person could easily interpret the allowance to be only 1/8 cup.

Graham says, "It is best to eat only small amounts of avocados, nuts, and seeds (not more than half of an avocado in a day or one ounce of nuts for a sedentary person; twice that for an athlete), and not to eat them daily."

"not to eat them daily". How often then? According to Graham, is any amount of nuts/seeds at all required for a healthy raw vegan diet, considering all the reasons given why they are bad for us?

(And why are all Graham's recipes set up for "sedentary people"?)

(And what about children, pregnant women, and the elderly, whose nutrient needs might be more adequately addressed with a greater array of nutrient-rich foods, including nuts and seeds?)

Graham goes on to say, "fruits, vegetables, and leafy greens contain adequate high-quality fatty acids (assuming we're getting enough calories) to meet all our needs." In other words, raw food vegans don't need to eat any nuts or seeds at all.

The point I'm trying to make here is that a person can easily conclude from reading 80-10-10 that there are absolutely no good reasons to eat nuts and seeds, and plenty of reasons not to eat them. And predictably, it seems to me we often hear from 80-10-10 fans that they don't eat nuts or seeds.

I simply don't agree. Although I don't think it's healthy to overconsume them, I believe humans have a quite natural taste for nuts and seeds, just as we do for fruit. I believe that a healthy person following their own natural instincts will eat them. I believe part of our symbiotic role with trees and other plants is to help disperse their seeds and nuts, by either eating the seeds that will pass on through, or by collecting the nuts and dropping or discarding them. In contrast to the book's claims, nuts and/or seeds are abundant in nature, and in all seasons in the tropics. If they aren't so abundant in northern climates during winter, well, neither are fruits. Nuts and seeds are in fruits, legumes, and grasses. They're all over the place. If they weren't, we wouldn't have plants.

When I read the posts from young people - especially those with admitted histories of eating disorders - who proudly proclaim that they don't eat "overts", I become concerned. Can't help it, I'm a grandma - and 24 years successfully raw.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2010 09:26PM by suncloud.

Rab, free spirits do read too. In my case, I read the book a few years after I went fruity already, which occurred as a result of following the guide of my body. I documented my journey on my website and have a number of articles there too, if you are interested in understanding of where I am coming from.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2010 10:45PM by rawgosia.

suncloud,

Thorough and diplomatic, as usual Thanks!

Suncloud, now that is the way to discuss things. Documented and expressing ones opinion.
It is a very good question about nuts and seeds, and one can go either way, but I think you interpreted Graham's views rather correctly (as far as I remember). Even though you don't completely agree with the 80-10-10 author, you don't completely disagree, either. To me, it is most important to limit the consuptions of nuts and seeds to a reasonable level.

I also think that "80-10-10" aims for pure fruit/veggies diet, and I also have concerns about that as my diet gurus, chimps, don't eat fruit/veggies only. I will stop at that, as this is a forum that does not allow advertising animal base food (not even insects or shells).

Like any other book, the "80-10-10" will have to stand the test of time, and we will see how it does. We should not throw it out (and form a negetive view of it)if we don't agree with some ideas in it but we should also not accept it as a "prescription" for our lives, as there is no such thing. Still, it is a great book in my opinion, as it brings the raw food diet to a different level.

Suncloud, do you have a page we could visit to read you story and see some photos?


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Suncloud- you are amazing. i love the way you think.

Wonderful friends, thank you! You have made my day/week/month.

(No website yet. In a few years, when I'm through with school I think.)

Are you a teacher? I look forward to some photos and stories from you. :0


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

This is the Dougster. He has eaten more fruits and vegetables than any person on the planet in the last 30 years. With all the hype about fructose and fruit making one fat, diabetic and chronically fatigued its funny to see what the real truth is.

A few years ago I asked why certain raw fooders are fat/emaciated and out of shape and some are real fit, vibrant and trim despite eating massive meals each day of supposed 'hybrid' fruits. I did my homework and joined in the fun.

I dont know ANY low carb eater in the health movement that has real fitness to speak of. Id like someone to show me, cos Im genuinely interested and have a running bet with someone.

I put up my blood tests on youtube every few months to show transparency. Check em out. 'vegan blood tests'. I check everything from b12, thyroid, cortisol to CEA and testosterone. All are sweet all the time.

When people get sick and tired of chronic fatigue, weight issues, cravings, candida and drug dependence, 811 is ready when they are. Its mother natures design, its like the grass diet for horses. Its natural.

durianrider, that has become repetitive - enough of naked Doug's photos. He looks like a tired professional athlete. They all do, regardless of diet. Yes, we need to be active, NO we SHOULD NOT BE ATHLETES.

Organic farmer's work plus some foraging or guerilla gardening - that is the best exercise. If we do everthing we need to grow our food, we do not need to break record in endurance, weight lifting or 100 miles running per day. That is just stupid.

Fruit based diet is the healthiest, we all know that. You are missing the point about the other areas of human life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2010 03:48PM by rab.

rab Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fruit based diet is the healthiest, we all know
> that.

Umm... no we don't. Don't concede facts not in evidence. Don't get beaten over the head to believing that modern humans are inherently fruivores based on an evolutionary split over 6 million years ago that assumes that natural selection should dictate what our personal health goals and outcomes should be. In short, nature doesn't know best. Nature could give a @#$%&. What works well for a species may not work well for an individual. And indeed, the whole presumption that "nature knows best" is flawed. We are not even eating the same quality and quantity of food even if I believed the flawed logic.

What we do know of fruitarian diets is that they don't work for everyone. [www.rawradianthealth.com][www.amazon.com][www.amazon.com]

And on balance fruitarian diets are unsustainable. "Nutritional deficiencies
As a very extreme vegan diet, fruitarianism is highly restrictive, making nutritional adequacy almost impossible.[26] The Health Promotion Program at Columbia University reports that a fruitarian diet can cause deficiencies in calcium, protein, iron, zinc, vitamin D, most B vitamins (especially B12), and essential fatty acids. Additionally, the Health Promotion Program at Columbia reports that food restrictions in general may lead to hunger, cravings, food obsessions, social disruptions and social isolation.[27]" [en.wikipedia.org]

Best of luck, if you a true frutie, this isn't going to be much help.

Paul

pborst: "The Health Promotion Program at Columbia University reports that a fruitarian diet CAN cause deficiencies..." - if I had a dollar for every time this tipe of formulation has been obused in mass media, I would be Bill Gates.


And, who knows better than nature? Humans? Fruit is the essence of our lives, it is the basis of our NATURAL diet. You can make any kind of "intellectually sounding" statements, I don't fall for that (I read about a thousand theory of literature related books, I am TIRED of smart talk).

I trust chimps more than any specialists. Always.

rab Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst: "The Health Promotion Program at Columbia
> University reports that a fruitarian diet CAN
> cause deficiencies..." - if I had a dollar for
> every time this tipe of formulation has been
> obused in mass media, I would be Bill Gates.
>
>
> And, who knows better than nature? Humans? Fruit
> is the essence of our lives, it is the basis of
> our NATURAL diet. You can make any kind of
> "intellectually sounding" statements, I don't fall
> for that (I read about a thousand theory of
> literature related books, I am TIRED of smart
> talk).
>
> I trust chimps more than any specialists. Always.

believe what you wish rab. It's a free country. My comments reflect alternative points on 80-10-10. The point of my prior post was that the diet doesn't work for everyone and that no, we don't know that a fruit based is the healthiest diet for us, though I am certain that a lot of the fruties believe that or they wouldn't be following their diet. Belief and the power of belief can be healthy things as long as they do not preclude us from being open to other possibilities! Best to you and yours