>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).

there's actually no way to know this due to the "assimilation unknown" that you mentioned.

which is why many people eat a balance of fruit, nuts, greens that works for them and monitor any symptoms that may appear or get tested, instead of making assumptions.

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

Yeah, but you'd only need to eat 1 pound of turnip greens in order to consume the same amount of vitamins as 2 pounds of mangos...and that's just vitamins; With the mangos you'd still need to eat something else for minerals and if your mangos become rotten or out-of-season (or too financially and/or philanthropically expensive to airlift from halfway across the world using blood-soaked middle-eastern oil) then you're screwed because if you were depending on eating that much fruit for vitamins then you were also depending on it for calories (vs nuts which can be stored for at least a year...you can survive a winter of hard labor without vitamins or minerals, but not without calories).

Also, I picked oranges and turnip greens as typical representatives of average fruits and greens, but if you pick a more nutritious (exotic) fruit like mango then I will pick a more nutritious green like kale which not only requires even less consumption to get the required vitamins, but also has a lower environmental and financial cost than mangos because, unlike mangos, kale can be grown locally in the temperate climates where the majority of the world's population resides.

True that cooking greens can destroy vitamins, but if I were going to spend time and money cooking then I think I'd cook complex-carbs like the whole grains which have efficiently sustained mankind since the invention of agriculture (even if, perhaps, not in perfect health);
Question is what about about raw greens? Do raw greens have reduced bioavailability compared to fruits due to some sort of anti-nutrient or were you referring to cooked greens?

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there's actually no way to know this due to the
> "assimilation unknown" that you mentioned.

Surely there are ways to get at least some idea of assimilation with blood tests.

BTW, I picked up "depression-free for life" by Gabriel Cousens at the library (only book they had from Cousens) and, for whatever it's worth, it reads like a textbook on biochemistry (though since he's a psychiatrist by training I wouldn't be surprised if it were representative of, perhaps, his best work).

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> which is why many people eat a balance of fruit,
> nuts, greens that works for them and monitor any
> symptoms that may appear or get tested, instead of
> making assumptions.

Yeah, but at what cost (to pocket-book and to humanity)? It's easy to just say "well this is what we do" when you're wealthy enough to pay (government) representatives to use self-guided missiles to destroy anyone that stands in the way of you doing it:
"What's that you say, more mangos so you can find the perfect 'balance' of diet that 'works for you'? No problem we'll have them shipped over from Southeast Asia (or factory-farmed domestically) right after we kill a few more arabs so we can steal their fuel which we need to generate energy by spewing toxins all over the atmosphere and oceans."
After all, we wouldn't want to have to make any assumptions...oh no it's far better to murder our brothers and poison our grandchildren.

Fighting against this mindset is half the reason I'm interested in diet reform.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2012 05:37PM by ExperimentsWithTruth.

Why not eat a diet balanced by the widest possible variety of healthy foods available? From page 12 of "Diet and Diet Reform":
"Mr Gandhi was then asked to give his reasons for limiting his daily diet to five articles only, and replied: That has no connection with vegetarianism... There was another reason. I had been a pampered child of nature. I had acquired then that notoriety that when I was invited to friends, they placed before me ample dishes of food. I told them I had come there to serve, and, personally, I should find myself dying by inches if I allowed myself to be pampered like that. So, in limiting myself to five ingredients of food, I served a double purpose. And I must finish all my eating before sundown. I have been saved many pitfalls by that...I like the process of exclusion better than that of inclusion, because no two doctors have the same opinion.

Then I think those restrictions to five articles of food have helped me morally and materially - materially, because in a poor country like India it is not always possible to procure goat's milk, and it is a hard thing to produce fruit and grapes. Then, I go to visit poor people, and if I expected hot-house grapes, they would banish me. So, by restricting myself to five articles of food, it also serves the law of economy." - Transcript of Gandhi's lecture to the London Vegetarian Society on Nov 20, 1931

So it's not a case of "making assumptions", but of recognizing the broader (ie non-bodily) consequences of diet (moral, economic, spiritual, etc). Alas, few seem to care about anything other than themselves and their own bodies except me and Gandhi.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2012 06:08PM by ExperimentsWithTruth.

>Fighting against this mindset is half the reason I'm interested in diet reform.

it's a good thing that you are contemplating these things and being concerned for others and the planet.

which is why eating locally grown is certainly a goal of many

we must all find our own place on the continuum

i personally am not going to be guilt ridden over eating mangos.

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nah Gabriel Cousens says up to 40%-50 calories of
> fat is fine. Thats not considered low fat...
>
> What has confused me though is I dont know how he
> measures his food, by calorie or weight? or not
> even but volume now? Percentage with or w/o water
> content? So I just use the 15-40% fat rule for me.
> Protein he says is anwhere from 25-50g a day. As
> doe carbs the phase chart should help out on that
> one. Prefereably a more current one that says that
> small amounts of the next phase fruits/veges can
> be included in a salad.
>
> That and because the book was written a while ago
> and things have changed, I think he forgot to
> emphasize the importance of omega 3-6 ratio in
> helping the body to produce it's own EPA/DHA
> instead of requiring supplementation. These issues
> are about the only ones I have with him. I still
> would like more research though in the context of
> high raw diets and macronutrient ratios.

In "depression-free for life" Cousens has a whole chapter on the omega 3-6 ratio...and this was published in 2000 (3 years before "Rainbow Green Live Food Cuisine" ). I can't say about whether his recommended percentages are calorie/weight/volume because I already returned it to the library, but I take it his recommendations vary a lot in his different books because he seems to have an awful lot to say about how different body types, vegetarian/vegan vs omnivorous menu, etc all influence/change optimal diet. For example, he recommends higher fat intake for "slow oxidizers" and even higher still if you're 100% vegan ("depression-free" and, I understand, "Concious Eating" have questionaires to determine whether you're a fast or slow oxidizer, but, from the table of contents, "Rainbow Green" seems to be more generic).

But, frankly, the protein percentage is moot if you want to eat close to the FDA guidelines for calories (and I do) because there are no natural raw foods that are calorie-dense enough to get you there that aren't either mostly fats or carbs. So there is no tweaking the percentages this way or that way: either you're eating almost exclusively as many nuts and fruits as will fit in your stomach (with whatever carb/fat/protein profile that gives you) or you're falling short on calories; So you have one degree of freedom (the fruit/nut ratio) which means you can tweak either the carb/fat ratio or the protein ratio, but not both:
[beyondveg.com]

Other thing is, as you noted, even Cousens recommends something like only 40-55% fats, but the all nut/green diet I've been doing is more like 70%+ fat (has to be to meet the FDA guidelines for calories). That's popular now too with the Paleo Diet folks, but they're meat eaters and the fact that I see no vegs recommending it concerns me....

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for the greens not having calories that's not
> as important.
>
> I eat about 1-2 lbs of greens a day. That's even a
> requirement by Victoria Boutenko who promotes a
> high fruit raw vegan diet. As for Gabriel COusens
> he recommends it for people using the Rainbow
> Greens program to reverse diabetes as per the
> program as it helps to prevent people from eating
> excess fruit or fats.

But I NEED the calorie density of "excess" fruit or fat. Cousens' said in a video interview that he doesn't recommend more than a few hours of exercise per day because he feels it's a waste of time, but I disagree: Maybe the yoga and weights that Cousens said he does for exercise is a waste, but I ride my bike between 40-100 miles everyday (rain or snow) for work, errands, etc.

So I guess my biggest disagreement with Cousens is that I don't believe in calorie restriction (for anyone) except to aid rest and/or prayer. IMO "excess" calories should be burned, not restricted...Douglas Graham (of the 80-10-10 diet) seems to agree, but he's negative on fats, I wonder why? Not that I would change to a low-fat high-carb fruit diet (as detailed above I think the moral/financial/social/spiritual costs are too high), but if what I'm doing is gonna make me sick then I'd like to know what the warning signs are so I know when to tap the brakes (or maybe go cooked).



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2012 03:24AM by ExperimentsWithTruth.

Yes, Gabriel Cousens is definitey not low fat. it just has you on very low sugar long enough to sort of reset your blood and body. then you just balance everything out once you have done the phase one no sugar phase.

Based on your rqmts u would need to go partly cooked.
Reading 811 book would explain the why for u regarding high fat with which u could agree or not.
And 811 can be done cooked, as he says.
Its just that energy level is lower.
Other option may be a lot of blending or juicing but there are drawbacks to that as well.

Btw if we base decisions upon ," people have failed on 811",we can do the same and apply it to raw food diets as well? People have tried and failed on raw so that means raw is flawed?
811 is unfairly singled out because it is misunderstood.and a larger adjustment.

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't see anyhting wrong with the high fat if it
> works for you. As a raw vegan I think you might
> even get by with less calories as time goes by
> because your body is working more efficiently you
> get more from your food. In fact.. some even seem
> to suggest that it's easier when you moderate the
> carbohydrates, and have more fats which can also
> curb appetite (esp. when you've been at it for
> some time) and protein which, well I think if you
> look for foods with higher amount of protein
> you'll also get kind of the same carb/fat ratio...
> tending more towards the fat or low carb ratio.
>
> Go with how you feel.. I dont count calories. I
> practice gong fu.

I don't generally count calories either, but I know from past experience that, with my lifestyle, I need to eat huge quantities of (even cooked food) just to maintain my weight and that, on raw diet, I feel weak if I don't eat as much high-fat or high-carb raw food as my stomach can comfortably contain.

However, there may be something to the idea that one needs to consume fewer calories on a raw (paleolithic) diet because they're better metabolized. Indeed, so far in practice, I've found on the days I eat just nuts I don't have to (nor is my stomach big enough to) eat an excessive amount of calories to feel energized (as I do with cooked foods), but I've not been doing it long enough yet to know if I'm losing weight (which is the opposite of what I want).

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Btw if we base decisions upon ," people have
> failed on 811",we can do the same and apply it to
> raw food diets as well? People have tried and
> failed on raw so that means raw is flawed?
> 811 is unfairly singled out because it is
> misunderstood.and a larger adjustment.

I don't think anyone said "people have failed on 811" in this thread. But aside from hypothetical nutrition I'm personally skeptical as to whether depending on quickly metabolized calorie sources like fructose is safe practice for someone that might be buying exclusively local in-season food, or growing their own food, or foraging because if you have to skip some meals then where will you get your energy from?

So I think the biggest argument against 80-10-10 is that carbs are biochemically short-term vehicles, but our overdeveloped hominid brains say that long-term strategies are holistically superior strategies. Now does that also mean that carbs are inferior calorie sources from the more narrow (ie non-holistic) perspective of nutritional health? I don't know, but some people seem to think so:
[180degreehealth.com]
"I have no doubts that athletic performance can in many cases be made superior by a very carbohydrate-heavy diet [but]...Short-term results and long-term results are often the exact opposite. If feeling better in the short-term was the key to health, we could all just take drugs."

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This perhaps leads to a different way of
> functioning for the body. if the body has less
> fructose might that also mean more stress on the
> liver? Or if you had enough glucose stored in the
> liver/muscles could that make up for the loss of
> fructose, if so still functional but perhaps less
> optimally? Wouldn't it also stress the liver to
> have to rely mostly on liver fructose than
> glucose? So I think the liver has to be taken into
> consideration as to how a macronutrient ratio
> works for a person.

The body is surprisingly adaptive:
[inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com]

Which is kind of what I'm looking to exploit (to attain more worthy goals): Even if eating a near mono-diet of 1 lb peanuts + 1 lb kale per day were suboptimal health-wise, is it still pretty healthy? With our bodies built to survive all sorts of hardships, how bad could it really be?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2012 04:58PM by ExperimentsWithTruth.

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've actually tried the very high fat ketogenic
> raw diet. I had lower back pains and I went
> searchin online for this and people on ketogenic
> diets experience the same thing, at least esp. in
> the beginning phase. I didn't go long enough to
> see how it went though.. I think there was a
> chance that I didn't consume enough carbs (still
> maintaining my ketosis though) by having 20g or
> less every 4 hrs. This is said to supply the body
> with some type of carbs but keeping it in ketosis.
> That's ketosis though.. and I'm not sure if it's
> better than lower/moderate carb with all the same
> benefits minus the lower back pain and /or stress
> to the liver or kidneys. Or even digestive.
>
> A ketogenic diet can probably still fall under a
> gabriel Cousens diet.. In fact you could also
> probably just use the Rainbow Greens plan minus
> the calorie restriction. It's just hard with all
> the fiber in food. If you're eating 2 lbs of
> greens a day that's a lot of relatively empty
> calorie high fiber food.

Well you could save the greens for dessert and if you can't finish them then you don't eat them (till the next day). That's what I've been doing.

Big thanks for your input here because I didn't realize that ketosis comes from the fat/carb calorie ratio. Since the calories in nuts are about 75% fat, 15% protein, and 10% carbs I guess what I'm trying is a clear cut ketogenic diet. So I guess I should look into that for a preview of what's ahead for me.