Hi. So I just finished reading "Diet and Diet Reform", which is a compilation of Gandhi's writings/experiments on food. While the book was written a long time ago (pre 1930's) and our current knowledge of nutrition is much more extensive, I have found few other writers whose dietary goals match Gandhi's and mine...which are (roughly):
1. To understand food on the basis of need rather than taste or pleasure, because by separating our needs from our wants we free ourselves to make deliberate choices (rather than being "forced" to do things we don't really want to do because we have fooled ourselves into thinking we need to indulge them).
2. To be more self-sufficient in order to better resist outside coercion and also better control the impact we have on others (for example, by enabling us to make more environmentally sustainable choices).
3. To be more physically healthy instead of using our bodies as a vehicle for indulgence and then seeking either natural or modern medicine to help us increase these abuses.
4. To save time and money so that we may use our resources to pursue what is more important to us and also make it easier for those with less time and resources to also attain health, self-sufficiency, and the freedom to make deliberate choices.

Many of these goals (except health) would be greatly assisted by limiting the variety of foods eaten, but I have found no writers other than Gandhi interested in finding ways to pursue this goal in a healthful and self-sufficient way. That said, I've been researching and trying various simplified (with only one or two items) raw and vegan diets over the last several weeks and have come to the following (tentative) conclusions:
-Due to the nature of human digestion, raw diets risk diseases of deficiency and cooked diets risk diseases of excess.
-It is difficult to consume sufficient calories on a raw diet unless they come from fatty foods like nuts. Complex carbohydrate foods such as soaked or sprouted raw wheat or quinoa cannot be digested in sufficient quantity to meet calorie needs and too much sugar (such as from juicy fruits) is not healthy.
-Eating whole foods greatly reduces the need for variety even to the point where one or two carefully selected foods might be sufficient, but additional variety is more resistant to unexpected problems (such as misunderstanding of nutritional needs or bad batches of food).
-Raw and cooked nuts or whole grains are well complimented by the vitamins/minerals and amino-acids in raw green leafy vegetables.
-Long term, vegan diets benefit from a supplement of occasional B12 rich eggs or fish (with shellfish/bugs being especially rich) and carnivore diets require a supplement of occasional raw greens.
-Beans and dairy appear unnecessary or even somewhat toxic.
-Saturated fats of meats cause heart disease.

With this information I have devised the following two diets which I am currently experimenting with:
A ) Majority raw nuts complemented with a daily portion of raw green leafy vegetables and an occasional raw egg as a vitamin B12 supplement.
B ) Majority cooked whole grain bread (fermented with homemade poolish/sourdough-starter rather than commercial yeast) or cooked brown rice (similarly fermented) or similar grain complemented with a daily portion of *raw* green leafy vegetables and an occasional cooked egg as a B12 supplement.

What do you think? I have also designed a solar cooking apparatus to eliminate the need for cooking fire/electric/fuel...I figure I can eat cooked diet B when there is sufficient sun and raw diet A when there isn't. I'm not opposed to purely eating raw diet A, but nuts are considerably more expensive than grains which undermines goal #4.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2012 07:30PM by ExperimentsWithTruth.

Other question is why do people usually do nut/fruit diets instead of nut/greens diets? Even Gandhi lived for years on nut/fruit diet, but never seems to experiment with nut/greens diet.

Seems to me that a diet of nuts and greens should be more nourishing than nuts and fruits, but I haven't found anyone advocating it.

How long has you been doing this style of eating? It sounds rather monotonous to me, but if it doesn't bother you, good for you. I think the reason sweet foods are so enticing to the majority of people is because we are meant to eat sweet fruits. Just my opinion...Nuts are very dense and have little or no water so I would not eat too much of them myself.

I am assuming because greens were not traditionally easy to grow in a climate like India's/western Nepal's. Fruit grows like weeds there, however.

Yeah, climate has a lot to do with cultural foods. For example, northern European countries swear for rye bread. Meanwhile southern european countries dislike it. It is the weather! It is like when people think they are the center of the Universe.

Adding fermented foods to your diet, granted you are healthy and not in a state of major deficiency or some kind of distress, can be an awesome source of B12... no suffering of creatures needed.

Thanks guys, so I've been doing the nuts and greens diet (on and off) and it's been working out pretty good. My next experiment is to minimize costs and see how it feels/works to do it full time for an extended period...so I'm thinking for the next few months I'll eat only 1-2 pounds of peanuts per day and 1/4-1/2 pounds of whatever greens are on sale (kale, mustard, turnip tops, collard, spinach, etc) for a total of about $3 per day. I asked my cousin who's a chiropractor and he said there isn't any danger in this diet and it should be very healthy, but what do you guys think?

I'm actually surprised at how expensive it is vs what I figure would be the cost of a basic cooked diet (like replacing the nuts with whole wheat flour or brown rice), but there are indirect costs to cooking such as time wasted, cooking equipment/place, etc. But I think it's important to first get down the basics as expressed by Henry David Thoreau:
"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion." - Walden by Henry David Thoreau

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually Gabriel Cousens is big on the greens and
> nuts and moderation of fruits.
>
> I have similar issues though being that for a raw
> vegan the most feasible source of carbohydrates
> are fruits which contain a lot of fructose. Right
> now the scientific community doesn't like fructose
> very much. But that seems to be more from
> concentrated sources of fructose stripped of the
> fiber of fruits and other constituents. That being
> said I'm not so sure that excessive fruits are
> good either. Fruitarians seem to thrive on fruit
> but only under 1 condition - very low fat. Well..
> they SEEM to thrive but there are a lot who don't
> do well on such a low fat diet, or in the long run
> it may not be healthy. Not just low fat but low
> protein, and LOTS and LOTS of calories. Somehow I
> think on a fruitarian diet one needs more calories
> and if one tried calorie restriction it would be
> hard since at least for me fruits give me sugar
> cravings afterwards whereas nuts/seeds are more
> satiating for me. And you never know when to stop
> on the fruits either unless you're intuitive.

Thanks for your encouragement I can't tell you how helpful it is. I'll also be sure to check out Gabriel Cousens.

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am assuming because greens were not
> traditionally easy to grow in a climate like
> India's/western Nepal's. Fruit grows like weeds
> there, however.

Don't greens grow pretty much everywhere that isn't desert? India looks pretty green from space:
[upload.wikimedia.org]
And one of the reasons I was attracted to the greens is because I thought they'd be easy to grow or forage if I decide to do that. Plus fruit is lower in essential vitamins which is what nuts somewhat lack.

phantom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Adding fermented foods to your diet, granted you
> are healthy and not in a state of major deficiency
> or some kind of distress, can be an awesome source
> of B12... no suffering of creatures needed.

What methods of fermentation are good for generating B12? To be clear I regard whole wheat bread made from scratch fermented and you can apparently do the same thing with rice to reduce the phytates ( [wholehealthsource.blogspot.com] ), but I've never heard of a way to ferment that can generate sufficient B12 ( [beyondveg.com] ).

But is it necessarily true that animals suffer by us eating their eggs? I know that chickens are often treated inhumanely and even if I were to take personal responsibility for their well being it's probably true that properly caring for animals requires more time than I'm willing to give. But honestly? I feel more guilty about eating plants than animals...because plants never hurt anyone!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2012 12:01AM by ExperimentsWithTruth.

ExperimentsWithTruth,

Quote

I feel more guilty about eating plants than animals...because plants never hurt anyone!

Heh? When was the last time a chicken went on a rampage at a grade school? We should all be eating other humans, by the implied rationale.

Or perhaps this was a joke and I didn't get it?

By the way, as a general rule, fruits are good for bioavailable vitamins, and greens are good for bioavailable minerals. There is overlap, of course.

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Heh? When was the last time a chicken went on a
> rampage at a grade school? We should all be
> eating other humans, by the implied rationale.
>
> Or perhaps this was a joke and I didn't get it?
>

Not joking, just saying I don't really get the logic that says: we shouldn't eat cow milk because it's stealing from the cow, we shouldn't eat unfertilized chicken eggs because it's stealing from the chicken, we shouldn't eat honey because it's stealing from the bees, but plants? Well, plants should be eaten alive together with their half born (ie soaked/sprouted) fetuses!

This extreme change of attitude strikes me as rather abrupt for a life form that I probably wouldn't know was any different from an oyster or jellyfish if it weren't for the invention of microscopes; And personally I don't think it's wrong to eat anything with solemn respect and thankfulness for the life sacrificed (or hardship endured) and if eating only plants is morally superior it's only because eating animal products requires two sacrifices (a plant to feed the animal and then the animal to feed us) where one would suffice and that's just greedy and disrespectful. If we were grateful for what God has given us then just the life of the plant would be enough and even that would be eaten with a sense of respect and bereavement for the sacrifice as opposed to a sense of entitlement that "We GET to eat as many plants as we want, dead alive young old, grind 'em up into little bits and PIG OUT because they're not animals, so nanny nanny nya nya you stupid plants!".

Sorry if what I've said here is inappropriate for this forum, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that although one of my goals is to reform my diet to reduce the harm I inflict on the world around me, I don't necessarily think that always means vegan. For example, I would rather eat meat that's being thrown in the trash than harm another plant for sustenance. I'd even eat human flesh to save another life if I knew it were a suitable (read safe) food substitute.

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By the way, as a general rule, fruits are good for
> bioavailable vitamins, and greens are good for
> bioavailable minerals. There is overlap, of
> course.

Thanks, good to know. BTW, my chiropractor cousin told me that the veggies sold in supermarkets can't provide sufficient minerals unless eaten in impossible quantities because they're grown in poor soil and he says the nutrition tables (from USDA, etc) don't reflect this. Is that true?

ExperimentsWithTruth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Not joking, just saying I don't really get the
> logic that says: we shouldn't eat cow milk because
> it's stealing from the cow, we shouldn't eat
> unfertilized chicken eggs because it's stealing
> from the chicken, we shouldn't eat honey because
> it's stealing from the bees, but plants? Well,
> plants should be eaten alive together with their
> half born (ie soaked/sprouted) fetuses!

Why use the word "should"? Eat what makes you feel good without feeling guilty. If eating makes you feel guilty then there is something wrong in your ideas.

ExperimentsWithTruth,

There is little data on the availability of minerals in our growing soil, but what there is suggests U.S. soils are becoming very depleted in many micronutrients because of overfarming and petroleum-based "fertilizers." There was a thread about this somewhere here from not long ago . . . let's see if I can find it . . . . ah, here:

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

Panchito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why use the word "should"? Eat what makes you feel
> good without feeling guilty. If eating makes you
> feel guilty then there is something wrong in your
> ideas.


It's a fact that something must die or endure hardship in order for us to live. That being said, what is wrong with the idea of feeling compassion towards whatever unlucky organism that happens to be? Perhaps "guilt" was the wrong word to use instead of "respect", "bereavement", and "compassion", but I've always felt this way even before I learned that eating animals generally requires more killing and, in truth, there's nothing wrong with the idea of feeling this sort of gratitude for food and, indeed, it is an idea shared by all the major religions to which the majority of the world's population subscribes. So if you claim there's something wrong with this idea then I have to ask, what is it? Do you think there's something wrong with compassion and the Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu scholars that teach it? Do you think there's something wrong with constraining diet (ie fasting) and the Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu scholars that teach it?

However, if there's one thing I'm sure about it's that I absolutely refuse to allow my actions (such as eating) to be dictated solely by what makes me "feel good". That's what causes most of the suffering in our species: that people are too quick to do what "feels good" as opposed to what they think they must do for the sake of themselves and/or others; Which just goes to show the wisdom of why all the major religions also consider selfishness and overindulgence sinful even though they are apparently victimless crimes.... meanwhile, our society tries its best to remain ignorant of that wisdom by immersing itself in the false mantra "just do what feels good". Well, no thank you...you can do what "feels good", but I will try not to because I know better. I "should" not because I "must" not if the outcome sought is to be attained.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2012 03:45PM by ExperimentsWithTruth.

>-Due to the nature of human digestion, raw diets risk diseases of deficiency and cooked diets risk diseases of excess.

i do not see any evidence of this


>-It is difficult to consume sufficient calories on a raw diet unless they come from fatty foods like nuts. Complex carbohydrate foods such as soaked or sprouted raw wheat or quinoa cannot be digested in sufficient quantity to meet calorie needs and too much sugar (such as from juicy fruits) is not healthy.

this is contrary to my knowledge and experience

If you need to eat, why not have compassion and respect for your body first?

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >-Due to the nature of human digestion, raw diets
> risk diseases of deficiency and cooked diets risk
> diseases of excess.
>
> i do not see any evidence of this
>
>
> >-It is difficult to consume sufficient calories
> on a raw diet unless they come from fatty foods
> like nuts. Complex carbohydrate foods such as
> soaked or sprouted raw wheat or quinoa cannot be
> digested in sufficient quantity to meet calorie
> needs and too much sugar (such as from juicy
> fruits) is not healthy.
>
> this is contrary to my knowledge and experience

Well, I read this article: [beyondveg.com]
And then I tried eating some of the various foods in quantities sufficient to meet my daily calorie needs.

Now perhaps it takes training, but I found myself physically unable to contain 4.5 pounds of raw beans or quinoa or other grains in my human sized stomach (such quantities are more voluminous and satiating than they appear on paper...though I had no problem eating the same quantity cooked). I admittedly did not try the juicy fruits because they are expensive, spoil quickly, and many sources claim that eating such large quantities will lead to diabetes and/or tooth decay; But even if the adverse health claims about fruits are false, I'm unwilling to accept fruits as a primary calorie source for the first two reasons (which are the same reasons why Gandhi saw fruititarianism as a dead end for liberating the masses of India from the drudgery of cooking).

What is your knowledge and experience? Your input is much appreciated.

read gariel cousens RAINBOW GREEN LIVE FOOD CUISINE. takes all the experimental work out of your quest. He is a doctor who has been 100% raw vegan for over 30 years and has helped patients heal every disease imaginable using raw food. Thus he has had the opportunity to test people's blood at various points of health and so he has a vast knowledge pool built up. he has written many books, all of which are on a complete different level than most other books on raw food and veganism.
basically his whole thing is that if we eat too much sugar, at least during our healing phase, we will never kill off the little bugs in our blood that end up promoting disease like cancer. Our bodies are composting our own cells if we eat cooked food at all. sugar promotes this. He promotes a low sugar, high green phase in order to reset our blood chemistry. research already available for others to learn! it is the highest level of body readiness for evolved living in my opinion.

>Now perhaps it takes training, but I found myself physically unable to contain 4.5 pounds of raw beans or quinoa or other grains in my human sized stomach (such quantities are more voluminous and satiating than they appear on paper...though I had no problem eating the same quantity cooked).

i don't see what this proves. those items are not human food

>I admittedly did not try the juicy fruits because they are expensive, spoil quickly, and many sources claim that eating such large quantities will lead to diabetes and/or tooth decay;

that is quite a negative perspective on fruit
i'm sure you could turn that around if you wanted to.

also,"many sources" are wrong.
i don't have tooth decay caused by fruit
i don't have diabetes.
decades of high fruit.
not long enough ;-)


> But even if the adverse health claims about fruits are false, I'm unwilling to accept fruits as a primary calorie source for the first two reasons (which are the same reasons why Gandhi saw fruititarianism as a dead end for liberating the masses of India from the drudgery of cooking).

i don't see how your first two reasons are factors against fruit.
but if you do, then so be it
i will not try to convince you otherwise.

Panchito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you need to eat, why not have compassion and
> respect for your body first?

I do, but the compassion and respect I have for my body is reflected in me feeding it healthy food (and/or through healthful fasting) while being grateful for the lives sacrificed in order to make that possible, not by making my body a vehicle for the abuse of the soul within through the acclimatization of unhealthy feelings of ingratitude, disrespect, and insensitivity towards other living things.

This reminds of when Gandhi and his co-revolutionaries were thrown in jail and given dirty/rotten food he proposed to them that it's better to fast than to destroy your dignity by purposely feeding your own body with the abusive slop.

I just eat and happy to be here

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By the way, as a general rule, fruits are good for
> bioavailable vitamins, and greens are good for
> bioavailable minerals. There is overlap, of
> course.

BTW do you have more information on this? According to nutritiondata.self.com 1 cup or orange wedges has the following vitamins:
Vitamin A 405 IU 8%
Vitamin C 95.8 mg 160%
Vitamin D ~ ~
Vitamin E (Alpha Tocopherol) 0.3 mg 2%
Vitamin K 0.0 mcg 0%
Thiamin 0.2mg 10%
Riboflavin 0.1 mg 4%
Niacin 0.5 mg 3%
Vitamin B 60.1 mg 5%
Folate 54.0 mcg 14%
Vitamin B 120.0 mcg 0%
Pantothenic Acid 0.5 mg 5%

Whereas 1 cup of, let's say turnip greens, has:
Vitamin A 6372 IU 127%
Vitamin C 33.0 mg 55%
Vitamin D ~ ~
Vitamin E (Alpha Tocopherol) 1.6 mg 8%
Vitamin K 138 mcg 173%
Thiamin 0.0 mg 3%
Riboflavin 0.1 mg 3%
Niacin 0.3 mg 2%
Vitamin B 60.1 mg 7%
Folate 107 mcg 27%
Vitamin B 120.0 mcg 0%
Pantothenic Acid 0.2 mg 2%

Other fruits and greens look similar and it seems like the greens generally have as much vitamins as fruits (in addition to more minerals). That's why I said it "seems" that greens "should be" more nourishing than fruits, but I haven't considered bioavailability.

Where can I learn about bioavailablity of vitamins and minerals?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2012 10:16PM by ExperimentsWithTruth.

Panchito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just eat and happy to be here

So does my dad who doesn't "like wraps because they have too much lettuce and not enough meat". He also has gout and will probably die of a heart attack one day, but he "eats and is happy to be here"...which is fine, just not what I'm gonna do myself.

RAWLION Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> read gariel cousens RAINBOW GREEN LIVE FOOD
> CUISINE. takes all the experimental work out of
> your quest. He is a doctor who has been 100% raw
> vegan for over 30 years and has helped patients
> heal every disease imaginable using raw food. Thus
> he has had the opportunity to test people's blood
> at various points of health and so he has a vast
> knowledge pool built up. he has written many
> books, all of which are on a complete different
> level than most other books on raw food and
> veganism.
> basically his whole thing is that if we eat too
> much sugar, at least during our healing phase, we
> will never kill off the little bugs in our blood
> that end up promoting disease like cancer. Our
> bodies are composting our own cells if we eat
> cooked food at all. sugar promotes this. He
> promotes a low sugar, high green phase in order to
> reset our blood chemistry. research already
> available for others to learn! it is the highest
> level of body readiness for evolved living in my
> opinion.

RAWLION, thank you very much this is very encouraging.

My only hesitation is that it appears Gabriel Cousins advocates both low carb AND low fat. Now perhaps I'm only thinking this because I haven't tried the experiment like Gabriel Cousins has, but I was thinking more along the lines of a low sugar/carb, high fat diet (with only a moderate amount of greens):
I am in good health with a fast metabolism (always been thin even when living a sedentary lifestyle while eating high calorie processed foods) and I do hard labor as part of my livelihood (for example, I had to ride my bike 40 miles today). I cannot afford to lose weight or strength.

That being said, do you still think Rainbow Green Live-Food Cuisine is the right book for me? Your input is much appreciated.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2012 12:45AM by ExperimentsWithTruth.

Wouldnt u think that a discussion of nutrients would need to take into account the amount of food one is eating
Of each type and not just the content per 100 grams, or % ?

regarding beyondveg

[ecologos.org]

[quackfiles.blogspot.com]
The complaint alleged that an elderly patient died of a gas gangrene infection developed after Cousens repeatedly injected him with "bovine adrenal fluid" as a treatment for fatigue.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wouldnt u think that a discussion of nutrients
> would need to take into account the amount of food
> one is eating
> Of each type and not just the content per 100
> grams, or % ?

That's why I cited the nutrients per cup as I've found through experiment that volume is the limiting factor in the amount of food I am able to eat. On a per gram basis the greens have way more nutrients because they are much denser than the watery fruits.

Of course none of this tells us anything about absorption...

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> regarding beyondveg
>
> [ecologos.org]
fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [quackfiles.blogspot.com]
> atients-death-debated.html
> The complaint alleged that an elderly patient
> died of a gas gangrene infection developed after
> Cousens repeatedly injected him with "bovine
> adrenal fluid" as a treatment for fatigue.

Frankly I don't care about the personal stories of my information sources because the truth or falsity of a claim stands independently of whether or not the person making it is a murderer, rapist, liar, or other such type of scoundrel. Contrary to what you seem to believe, if a liar reads aloud Einstein's Theory of Relativity it does not suddenly become false.

Any set of lips can dictate a truth or a lie regardless of who they belong to. That's why I only trust my own brain and my own eyeballs which tell me that much of what I've read at beyondveg.com (and what I've seen of Gabriel Cousens in the very short time I've known about him) is fact...particularly the critiques and improvements of the peer-review process for scientific inquiry, which seemingly unbeknownst to the authors are, in fact, corroborated by (ironically) peer-reviewed papers (both on the empirically measurable failures of peer-review and on the mathematical/theoretical failures of the peer-review process as a tool to uncover scientific truth). I know because that was my dissertation topic when I was working on my PhD. So not only is peer-review not the gold standard of true scientific inquiry, but IMO the two couldn't be more diametrically opposed:
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - Galileo Galilei

I appreciate your input, but if all you have to contribute on this topic is ad-hominem attacks then you should save your fingers because (unlike the gullible "scientists" reviewing most academic journals) such logical fallacies aren't going to convince me of anything (one way or the other).



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2012 05:34PM by ExperimentsWithTruth.

>That's why I cited the nutrients per cup as I've found through experiment that volume is the limiting factor in the amount of food I am able to eat. On a per gram basis the greens have way more nutrients because they are much denser than the watery fruits.

my point was a general one with respect to the difficulty in eating a high volume of vegetables as opposed to fruit.

>Of course none of this tells us anything about absorption...

good point.



>Frankly I don't care about the personal stories of my information sources because the truth or falsity of a claim stands independently of whether or not the person making it is a murderer, rapist, liar, or other such type of scoundrel. Contrary to what you seem to believe, if a liar reads aloud Einstein's Theory of Relativity it does not suddenly become false.

not relevant to the reason i posted it.
it was posted because i was frankly shocked that he injected that stuff,
and to present another perspective of cousins.

>That's why I only trust my own brain and my own eyeballs which tell me that much of what I've read at beyondveg.com

if you truly trusted your own brain/eyeballs, etc. you would have no need to refer to other sources to determine what to eat. just my opinion of course.



>I appreciate your input, but if all you have to contribute on this topic is ad-hominem attacks then you should save your fingers because (unlike the gullible "scientists" reviewing most academic journals) such logical fallacies aren't going to convince me of anything (one way or the other).

again, just sharing an alternative view in case you hadn't seen it.
but you have already made up your mind on the validity of beyondveg, et al, so i have wasted my time in posting. but that's ok, i have plenty of time

best to you on your journey

ExperimentsWithTruth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On a per gram basis the greens have way more
> nutrients because they are much denser than the
> watery fruits.

^^ Correction: I meant to say that watery fruits are much denser than voluminous greens...which is why I posted the nutritional content of 55g of turnip greens vs 180g of orange wedges (both fill a volume of 1 cup).

So even if you can eat 3 times as much fruit (by weight) you're still not taking in more vitamins. Sure if you can eat 5 or 6 times more pounds of fruit than you can greens you'll get more vitamins, but it doesn't seem like it would be easy for me to procure that amount of fruit while maintaining harmony with my environment (year round).

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not relevant to the reason i posted it.
> it was posted because i was frankly shocked that
> he injected that stuff,
> and to present another perspective of cousins.

Well I also read somewhere else that Cousens didn't inject it, but rather the guy that died injected it into himself (against the recommendation of Cousens, but still while under his care). But since the case was settled out of court I guess we'll never know. Regardless, Cousens is clearly not afraid to experiment even if, perhaps, in sometimes reckless ways.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if you truly trusted your own brain/eyeballs, etc.
> you would have no need to refer to other sources
> to determine what to eat. just my opinion of
> course.

Not so because there's a limited number of experiments I can perform in my 30,000 or so days on this earth. So even though I don't need anyone to tell me whether something works or not, I do need someone to help me determine what to try first because I don't have enough time to try everything...at least that's the way I see it.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2012 10:20PM by ExperimentsWithTruth.

Then there's the calorie considerations of greens v fruit...

ExperimentsWithTruth,

Those of us that eat a lot of fruit do eat pounds more fruit than greens I answer the micronutrient question thusly: if a nutrient, say, a fat-soluble vitamin, is heat sensitive, one is more likely to get it in volume from fresh, ripe, raw fruits rather than from tough greens, like the aforementioned turnip tops. It is not so easy to eat two pound of raw turnip tops in one sitting, as compared to two pounds of mangoes. Cooked greens are depleted of vitamins, but mineral bioavailability is not generally heat sensitive, so raw or cooked, greens are still good for those.

The environmental cost issue is a serious consideration for many of us, likewise, so those of us that prioritize this may eat more local vegetables, even if cooked, in the "off season," eschewing many fruits until they are available locally again.