if so why do you choose this raw path?

do you agree/disagree with its philosophy?

I think it is just a raw forum, not specifically 801010. I am definitely not 801010, as a lot of fat in my diet works for me.

This is just a plain old raw vegan forum, no numbers included. Unless you want them, I don't . Not interested in measuring each mouthful, I just eat what I want.

WanderRA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if so why do you choose this raw path?
>
> do you agree/disagree with its philosophy?


Many member on the board either follow 80-10-10 or some version a fruit-based raw vegan diet. But that said, it's not strictly an 80-10-10 board though you may find many threads discussing this book.

FFF

Its a broad spectrum raw vegan forum here, there are many here as has been said who are 80/10/10 or high fruit though.

You might be interested in 30 bananas a day that's a dedicated 80/10/10 forum.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2011 06:18PM by powerlifer.

Yes. 80% talking about raw foods, 10% talking about foods we shouldn't discuss and 10% arguing about that other 10%



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2011 06:23PM by banana who.

80/10/10 doesn't work for a lot of people, but it works for me. I love fruit, and while I never in my pre-raw days thought I would be eating mostly fruit, here I am today loving it.

For people wanting to eat an all raw diet, there really are only 2 choices of where the bulk of the calories are going to come from - fruit or fat, as greens don't provide a lot of calories. And what I've noticed about the folk who choose fat is ultimately they end up eating some cooked foods to get the energy they need, or some can do well with limiting their caloric intake to under 1000 calories with high fat and they seem to thrive.

But if you need more calories and have high energy demands, fruit is an excellent way to go for a person wanting to be all raw.

The calories hypothesis is totaly wrong, where does the cow gets its calories in eating only grass? I have not seen any cow eat cooked foods or fruits.

To said that greens do not provide a lot calories is either wrong or calories hypothesis is wrong, that is the BIG problem with rawfoodist, a lot of assertions are made without any scientific backing, so you have to rely on your own experience to clear the dust.

i would say its a non-guru backed forum with a lot of different ideas and thoughts on how to do things .. one of the few arent biased by one owners personal view point or another

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Jodi is totally spot on, i don't know who owns or runs this forum but it isn't biased in anyway and lets everyone get there view over which is most appreciated.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]

Everyone has their own view, that is correct but the beauty of life is that periodically we challenge deep held beliefs. I am challenging the calories count liner, it is not true. Especially that repeated argument on this forum that goes like this.
1. You need 2000 or x amounts of calories per day
2. You can only get them from fruits or cooked foods
3. If you do not like fruits or do not want fruits you have to eat cooked food because greens do not provide enough calories

WHERE DOES THE COW GET ITS CALORIES ON A DIET OF RAW GRASS

I've been itching to get home from work and reply to this thread and madinah's assertions. I can only view (not reply to threads on) this forum at work.

Madinah, do you even understand how a cow's digestive system works and how very different it is to a human digestive system?

Cows are what's known as ruminants, they have multiple stomachs in order to process the very large amounts of grass and hay they eat. VERY importantly, their multiple stomach allow for the housing of vast quantities of bacteria which do much of the digestive work for the cow.

These bacteria are able to do something that no cow (or human) can do, breakdown cellulose into usable sugars. Cellulose is a long chain, complex carbohydrate that not many creatures have the enzyme (cellulase) to break down and use for fuel. Cows are in a symbiotic relationship with cellulase producing bacteria which break this substance down into simpler sugars which the cow can then use.

Where do cows get their calories from on a diet of raw grass? From the bacteria that break down this inedible grass into more absorbable shorter chain carbohydrates including sugars, THAT'S where the calories come into it!

So if you like, cows are basically doing the same thing as 811ers, except they are employing a middle man to make sugars available to them. Now wonder the cows are so muscley and strong, lol!

HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES????

mmmmm, apples... *drools*

Among all of the raw food communities, this one in my opinion is the kindest. Also the most informative, with more fact and less opinion being shared. There are quite a few long timers here which is most appreciated by us newbies.

februarygirl

klomasius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've been itching to get home from work and reply
> to this thread and madinah's assertions. I can
> only view (not reply to threads on) this forum at
> work.
>
> Madinah, do you even understand how a cow's
> digestive system works and how very different it
> is to a human digestive system?
>
> Cows are what's known as ruminants, they have
> multiple stomachs in order to process the very
> large amounts of grass and hay they eat. VERY
> importantly, their multiple stomach allow for the
> housing of vast quantities of bacteria which do
> much of the digestive work for the cow.
>
> These bacteria are able to do something that no
> cow (or human) can do, breakdown cellulose into
> usable sugars. Cellulose is a long chain, complex
> carbohydrate that not many creatures have the
> enzyme (cellulase) to break down and use for fuel.
> Cows are in a symbiotic relationship with
> cellulase producing bacteria which break this
> substance down into simpler sugars which the cow
> can then use.
>
> Where do cows get their calories from on a diet of
> raw grass? From the bacteria that break down this
> inedible grass into more absorbable shorter chain
> carbohydrates including sugars, THAT'S where the
> calories come into it!
>
> So if you like, cows are basically doing the same
> thing as 811ers, except they are employing a
> middle man to make sugars available to them.
> Now wonder the cows are so muscley and strong,
> lol!
>
> HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES????

Great explanation but does not this prove that we humans too can get calories from greens and grass with the help of a juicer. So the assertion that fruits or cooked foods are the only way is wrong. Where it takes the cow hours to digest, we can achieve in 30 minutes of juice making and juice drinking. In my own experience, drinking a pint or two of celery and dandelion juice in the morning provides me so much energy that I do not feel like eating anything else for hours.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2011 02:52PM by RawPracticalist.

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

> For people wanting to eat an all raw diet, there
> really are only 2 choices of where the bulk of the
> calories are going to come from - fruit or fat,

or a balance of fruits and fats between the two which would be a third choice with the fallacy being that the bulk in your calories has to be in any one cateogry


> as greens don't provide a lot of calories.

true, they don't but even with low caloric density, they can help provide a balance with fruit and fat esp if they become the bulk the diet by volume.

>And what I've noticed about the folk who choose fat is
> ultimately they end up eating some cooked foods to
> get the energy they need, or some can do well with
> limiting their caloric intake to under 1000
> calories with high fat and they seem to thrive.

the characterization is a dichotomy instead of a gradient, interesting. if you eat a predominantly raw food vegan diet, you either eat mostly fruit or mostly fat? But is it true empirically? Is it a dichotomy (fruit or fat) or a 3 choice (fruit, fat or a mix) or a gradient with some sprouted starches (grains and legumes) in there. I'm certainly in the last category as I sprout lentils, mung beans and barley routinely along with quinoa, and buckwheat.

My gradient position may or may not be unique, but works for me. The other point being, Prana's position works for him. So, there may be more than one "right" answer.

Just remember, raw can be 100 percent raw or 80 percent. Or somewhat lower. Above 50 percent raw vegan by calories is still raw. Is 100 percent raw vegan better than 80 percent? Based on what?

Paul



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2011 04:36PM by pborst.

banana who Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes. 80% talking about raw foods, 10% talking
> about foods we shouldn't discuss and 10% arguing
> about that other 10%


LOL! BW-you just made my day.

Good Vibrations,
Trox

Yeah ive just finished reading doug grahams book and love the refreshing simplicity of his approach. No suppliments or exotic herbs.. just basic high street stuff, and im finding it works! Although I think he's a bit harsh on some things, I think powders/superfoods have their place and are not useless like he makes them out to be.

RawPracticalist Wrote:

> Great explanation but does not this prove that we
> humans too can get calories from greens and grass
> with the help of a juicer. So the assertion that
> fruits or cooked foods are the only way is wrong.
> Where it takes the cow hours to digest, we can
> achieve in 30 minutes of juice making and juice
> drinking. In my own experience, drinking a pint or
> two of celery and dandelion juice in the morning
> provides me so much energy that I do not feel like
> eating anything else for hours.

It doesn't prove that we can get calories from greens (significant amounts anyway) as we do not possess the digestive system of a cow, which is multiple stomachs and a prevalence of cellulose breaking down bacteria.

Juicing merely removes the cellulose and leaves behind the nutrient rich cytoplasm (liquid cell contents), which in greens is nutrient rich but low in calories. The cellulose is where the cow gets it's sugars from (with the help of the middle men bacteria), that's why the grass is calorie rich for cows.

And the assertion is not that fruit or cooked foods gives the significant source of calories, the dichotomy is between fruits and fats (i.e. carbohydrates and fats).

I believe it isn't simply the calories that give us energy, it's also the nutrients. I'm open to the idea that we can have lots of energy on a low calorie diet, but I feel that this isn't the case myself.

p.s. great post pborst!

I'm a gradient person myself and think there is a bit of a false dichotomy between the fruit and the fat camps, with both portraying the other calorie source as being THE DEVIL!!! lol.

Great post klomasius
It is possible to get enough calories from greens with juicing and blending without resorting to cooked food or a lot of fruits. In juicing greens we get the nutrients and in high speed blended green smoothies we get the cellulose.
We do not have to eat necessaryly a lot fat, the body will generate fats from the greens and fruit we eat.

Paul, I'd be interested to see a daily menu of all raw foods that doesn't include a lot or any sweet fruit, but is also relatively low fat (lets say relative low fat is 20% fat). I've heard of people trying a green-arian style diet without the inclusion of mega fat, but I have not seen anyone doing that long term. Of course, if one is adding cooked foods, then there are tons of non-fat calorie sources.

I don't want to discourage anyone from trying whatever approach they desire. If juicing greens as your main source of energy is what anyone wants, please go for it. I am pretty certain I would not fare well on that approach.

I too would love to see a typical daily diet of someone who gets most of their calories from greens, like prana, I doubt I'd fare well on such a regime, but I am open to the possibility that it might be possible.

Can you post a typical daily food diary?

Basically you have 2 types of people in the raw food scene.

Those that are thriving and those that are failing to thrive.

Have a look at the fruit phobic raw guru's that bag 811. Look how out of shape they are. Look how they arent even vegan. Look how money hungry they are.

If you want peak health,fruit and drug free fitness is a large part of the equation.

I ran a 16:58 for 5000m on the track yesterday. Fastest of my life. You wont see ANY raw crew able to do that on a low fruit, high fat fad diet.

Is it any wonder that 100% of the raw vegans out there longterm that are kicking ass are fruit based? Its no wonder to me. I wish someone told me that back in 2002 so I didnt have to waste time taking poor advice from snake oil hucksters. 2 of them are currently trying to sue me now. DW & VK. Dress like a guru, smile like buddha but sue like Monsanto!

Fruit based or green based?
Fruit is the ideal diet if you are already healthy or have brought your body back to optimal health. Greens are good for rebuilding your body back after years of abuse. That is why 80/10/10 is not successful for new comers they are just too sick to rely on fruits alone. It is not a calorie or cooked food issue. Brian Clements and Gabriel Cousens understood that, there is nothing with more nutrients than greens and sprouts, Doug does not understand that, he is in the ideal world.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2011 12:47PM by madinah.

Prana Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Paul, I'd be interested to see a daily menu of all
> raw foods that doesn't include a lot or any sweet
> fruit, but is also relatively low fat (lets say
> relative low fat is 20% fat). I've heard of people
> trying a green-arian style diet without the
> inclusion of mega fat, but I have not seen anyone
> doing that long term. Of course, if one is adding
> cooked foods, then there are tons of non-fat
> calorie sources.

hmmm, seems like the baseline is shifting. Remember fats and fruit are not exclusive. And if you aspire to eat all raw [I don't, never have, for me an 80 percent raw, 20 percent conservatively cooked Furhman diet is optimal], you could design a menu plan that was low fat or less than 20 percent with mostly sweet fruits, greens, spouted grains and legumes and starchy vegetables and some nuts and seeds. But according to Becoming Raw, p119, the recommended range for fats by most organizations is 15 to 35 percent, rather than 10 to 20. The World Health Organization is 15 to 30 percent; whereas the Institute of Medicine Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range is 20 to 35 percent for adults. Melina and Davis report average raw vegan intake of fat at 36 percent which I presume is your point.

But I would like to shift gears into the characterization itself, fruit or fat. Makes it sound like you have to make a choice of where to get your macronutruients. Mostly fruit and thrive or mostly fat and transgress into eating cooked food [devil's in the details]. It isn't right is it? Doug Graham eat some nuts doesn't he? Bet Clement eats some fruit. Apart from the line drawing [i.e. percentage fat or carb], there is general agreement on whole natural plant-based food.

Seems to me a little forest for the trees thing going on here. But let's very clear here. Saying either fruit or fat on a 100 percent raw food vegan diet is a false choice, is it not? People can add raw sprouted grains and starchy veggies, or greens -- juiced or whole-- and sweet fruits along with nuts and seeds. So, I guess I reject your premise. Yeah if it's 100 percent raw vegan and I say less than 20 percent fat and if I also said little or no fruit, then it would be tough but not impossible to come up such a diet plan. The problem is that I never said any of those things. Real people who aspire to be 100 percent vegan don't have to place those limits on their choices. If they go over 30 percent fat, so what? If the fat is some raw nuts and seeds and the other 70 percent are raw fruits, vegetables some starches and grains/legumes, what is the harm?

> I don't want to discourage anyone from trying
> whatever approach they desire. If juicing greens
> as your main source of energy is what anyone
> wants, please go for it. I am pretty certain I
> would not fare well on that approach.

I don't think I ever said greens were my main source of energy. Rather a gradient suggests variation, I might more sprouts and wheatgrass in the winter with winter veggies that are in season and more fresh fruits and veggies for spring and summer.

I guess what it comes down for me, Prana is that I've heard that fruit or fat dichotomy from a number on the board, and I just don't buy it. I think it's a false choice. You don't have to put all or the majority of your calories into one category. The idea of a gradient is to spread it out so perhaps no one category may exceed 30 percent. If you would like me to put up a typical Fuhrman diet plan for me, be glad to do so. Would include some cooked soup. Best.

Paul

'Palms over face' People gotta, one day, actually read 80/10/10!!

RawPracticalist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great post klomasius
> It is possible to get enough calories from greens
> with juicing and blending without resorting to
> cooked food or a lot of fruits. In juicing greens
> we get the nutrients and in high speed blended
> green smoothies we get the cellulose.
> We do not have to eat necessaryly a lot fat, the
> body will generate fats from the greens and fruit
> we eat.

Not according to the explanation given by klomasius. Yes you would ingest plenty of cellulose through blending, but you would still not have the bacteria needed to breakdown the cellulose into sugar (i.e. calories).

Why is it fruit OR fat? I eat both. Why does no one act as if you can have both?