anyone want to justify the repeated proclamations of "where do you get your zinc, dha, epa, iron, iodine" on a fruit based diet?

> "fat 151%
> omega 3 140%
> omega 6 44%
> protein - all aminos above 100%
> all B vits, folate, vit A all way above 100%
> vit E 92%
> calcium copper iron magnesium, all above 100%
> manganese phosphorous, potassium all above 100%
> selenium 200%
> zinc 89%"
>

I put the foods below into cronometer and those were the percentages.
200 cal lettuuce
1000 cal bananas
900 cal figs
27 cal dates
30 cal celery
80 cal spinach
220 cal avos
30 cal brazil nut


Wait, cronometer isn't accurate! nobody can eat like that! too much sugar!, did I miss anything? or, how about this one, "you just made up those numbers!"

"The RDA's are based on scientific research of both humans and animals and are set at levels to provide for 98% of all healthy people living in the US. There is a cushion built in so that if you get 67% of the RDA for a nutrient, you should be getting a minimum amount as an average person."

oh wait, the above doesn't count since it's just a quote from a dietitian, not a STUDY.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2014 05:48PM by fresh.

"too much sugar!"

Got that right, over 300 grams not even including the dates. Ouch.

see other post, then provide evidence that , OUCH, there is any problem with 300g.

and it is beside the point anyway.

Your contention about insufficient nutrients on a fruit diet has been shown to be a fabrication on your part.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2014 06:12PM by fresh.

<<<"too much sugar!">>>

You have NO concept of how much Carbohydrate Energy an Active person needs every day!!!

If I do not consume at least 300 grams of sugar every day from the FOOD that we are Biologically DESIGNED to Eat, I'll risk losing some of my Lean Body Mass. Perhaps if I was a couch potato, I could eat much less without losing some of my Lean Body Mass, but the excess will NOT do me any HARM because the Fiber will slow down the Absorption of the Sugar and our Bodies are DESIGNED to simply turn any excess Sugar into Fat.

Even a slender couch potato female needs at least 130 grams of sugar every day to keep from losing some of their Lean Body Mass and a slender couch potato male needs around 170 grams of sugar every day to keep from losing some of their Lean Body Mass.

All of you Fruit Bashers are totally CLUELESS as to our Caloric Needs for SUGAR!!!

NONE of y'all can do anything but parrot Brian Clement who acknowledges that Fruit was our Original Diet, but now is so deluded that he actually thinks that today's Fruit has 30 times as much Sugar as our Original Diet!!!

Once again, NONE OF Y'ALL understand how much SUGAR we need every day to fuel an Active person or even for a slender couch potato. If today's Fruit has 30 times as much Sugar as our Original Diet, that means that an active person might need to eat 900 Bananas every day.

Do you guys follow the math?

If an Active person needs to eat as much as 30 Bananas every day to fuel their Active Lifestyle, but they have to use the Foods that Brian Clement claims existed long ago, which only have 1/30th as much SUGAR, then we would have to eat 900 Bananas every day to get the same amount of Calories.

For those of y'all who believe BC has a CLUE when it comes to how much SUGAR is too much, you guys are just as DELUSIONAL as BC!!!

WE NEED SUGAR!!!

“Our bodies need carbohydrates more than any other substance. Our muscle cells and brains are designed to run on carbohydrates. Carbohydrate-rich foods, when consumed in their natural state, are low in calories and high in fiber compared with fatty foods, processed foods, or animal products.” -Joel Fuhrman, M.D., “Eat to Live” p. 116

“Primates are the only animals on the face of the earth that can taste sweet and see color. We were designed by nature to see, grasp, eat and enjoy the flavor of colorful, sweet fruits.” -Joel Fuhrman, M.D., “Eat to Live” p. 30

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

Pringle's diet isn't doable. He, himself, has to add all sorts of cooked food in to sustain himself.

Temp/pl, before he was carted off to the asylum, smashed pringle and his diet to smithereens. About the only time I agreed with PL, may his troubled soul find peace in the Home.

Anon 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pringle's diet isn't doable. He, himself, has to
> add all sorts of cooked food in to sustain
> himself.
>
> Temp/pl, before he was carted off to the asylum,
> smashed pringle and his diet to smithereens. About
> the only time I agreed with PL, may his troubled
> soul find peace in the Home.


Literally everything in this post is wrong. Looks a lot like a desperate attempt for attention.

We definetely need carbohydrates,but the question is from which kind of source:
fruit or sprouted grains and legumes?
Fruit is easier to digest but sprouted legumes have way more nutrition per gramm and are also a very decent source of calories.
It is also possible to use fat as a calorie source if the body adapts to it.

the antifruit police look like crap in real life

For the fruit phobic:

replace the bananas and dates and lettuce
with sprouts.

presto, not so much "sugar", and lower calories and good nutrient intake, perfect for meditation.

One thing is common among all organisms: sugar accelerates ageing.

-------------------------------------------
My blog: [www.crvitality.com]

mattscr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing is common among all organisms: sugar
> accelerates ageing.

I have found out for myself that you sure have got that right. Luckily I switched from a hclf raw vegan diet to a hflc raw vegan diet a little over a year ago and not only am I starting to look better I am also physically stronger with more muscle mass even though there has been no change in my exercise routine over the past few years. I average 67.7% of my diet in lipids each day. My intake of carbs averages 90.3 grams a day - 22.3 grams of sugar.

No longer do I listen at all to the self-appointed raw vegan "experts".

mattscr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing is common among all organisms: sugar
> accelerates ageing


Maybe that happens to some people I don't know but I'll say something I have never said online since I started raw in 2006 Nov.

I am 51 years old male but I look about 37-38. Girls in their 20s hit on me. Many times. I look so fresh compared to innumerable dehydrated people I see around me all the time. Many people look at me and they stare with nothing short of amazement because of my hydrated, fresh, almost flawless skin. Many look away quickly because it shows them how dehydrated they are. And while I have good face structure and features, at this age it's unequivocally due to a high fruit diet that I can look like this today.

Like I said, I never said this because I don't want to project an appearance of egoism about it. But it's a fact.


So when is this aging and deficiencies going to kick in?? And the Spouters are going to say, "Wait, sometimes it takes many years". That's all they can say. Like they're psychic.

Some of them who're talking about aging will never live to see my age. Yeah, that's right, I'm psychic too.

So as I've said before I'll never, ever follow these fly by night Spouters. Who wants to eat tasteless sprouts by the bucketful, lol?

I know what the high fruit diet has done for me and I'm rock solid in my determination to stay this path.


Take a poll and see how many eat sprouts and algaes predominantly. It's a lonely world there.

"Like I said, I never said this because I don't want to project an appearance of egoism about it. But it's a fact."

Why don't you go ahead and show us all how young and "flawless" you look...

mattscr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing is common among all organisms: sugar
> accelerates ageing.


" To speed up the onset of Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers put Fructose in their drinking water. The mice on the high sugar diet without being fasted developed the disease earlier than the mice that were fasted! Hear about the incredible results in the video below!"



yet another bogus sugar "study". unbelievable

Yes, brazil nut will increase zinc and selenium levels quite a bit, but there are still serious issues with people on N.H diets doing this. First the copper levels in the nut are far higher than zinc, so zinc aborption will be low and compound the N.H nutritional inbalance. Second, the iron levels of this nut are low, so it won't do much to increase zinc and bring the diet into balance. So far the Brazil nut will just compound the problems and weaknesses of the N.H diet. Third, the possibility of tanning binding from the nuts and the Natural Hygienists possible trouble in breaking the iron/zinc chelate with the tannin because they wouldn't have the extra probiotic bacteria or organic acids.

I ignore the cronometer because it is notorious for giving high estimates for nutrient values in foods and are usually inconsistent with various other nutritional analysis done. I don't know who set the cronometer up, but it is a disgrace the rubbish nutritional analysis' they provide.

It all looks good on the surface in the original post, but when you dig below the surface the same gloomy situation is still there, in fact it is possibly made worse.

Diets need to be done in good balance so you can make foods work togeather properly to harness the full power and potential from the diet. The way Fresh demonstrates in the O.P makes it clash, and when things clash, bad things can happen. Not good.

The nutrient police give the idea a big fat F on the report card on many levels. F = Fail.


-------
There are many reasons why l eat nuts only once a week. It is because they are hard to balance in the diet without considerable effort to make accomodations during the week to offset inbalances caused by the nuts. We need to make adjustments for copper, mono fats, omega 6's by consuming higher poly/omega 3 ratio seeds and foods high in zinc and lower in copper rda to offset the inbalances. And if you don't do it the old EPA/DHA problem can rear it's ugly head by reducing our efficiency of making these things. Many other potential problems too. Not good.

See,...vegans don't eat meat so they need to do certain things to make up the inbalances on most vegan diets. It doesn't mean meat is going to save you, but there are many things in flesh food that can help keep nutrient inbalances in check.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2014 01:37AM by The Sproutarian Man.

Vegans usually forget they must work harder to make up for nutrients lost in meat, and they usually run into trouble because they only look at the surface and don't look at the complex interactions of the nutrient synergy. Understanding nutrient balance is essential on a vegan diet, otherwise you are most likely to run into problems, but no raw food leaders never talk in good detail about this and that is why their subjects will nearly always fail....it is the blind leading the blind (raw food 101 school). It is important to look below the surface and do the raw food 404 school and ditch the old raw food 101 school taught by raw food leaders.

Raw food 101 school can kill. It is the nonsense school implanted in our heads from most health books and websites. I say to people...throw all your health books out and stop reading the silly websites, because those things reak in raw food 101 malarkey....they are not helping our case, they mainly brainwash us with ignorance.

The books and websites can give some ideas and motivation for people, but they are still often quite dangerous because of the nonsense they bring up. Best to largely avoid all that stuff and do your own research.

how come this guy did ok without all the numbo jumbo?

[www.youtube.com]

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vegans usually forget they must work harder to
> make up for nutrients lost in meat, and they
> usually run into trouble because they only look at
> the surface and don't look at the complex
> interactions of the nutrient synergy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2014 01:51AM by Panchito.

TSM,

I have no idea what you're talking about, "clashing", etc, sounds like mumbo jumbo.

Just concede the point as it was demonstrated.

I just threw in the ONE brazil nut just for the heck of it.
It's not necessary.

Panchito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> how come this guy did ok without all the numbo
> jumbo?
>
> [www.youtube.com]
>
> The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vegans usually forget they must work harder to
> > make up for nutrients lost in meat, and they
> > usually run into trouble because they only look
> at
> > the surface and don't look at the complex
> > interactions of the nutrient synergy.

Hi Panchito,

that is a very very good question. None-the-less, most vegans do fail unfortunately, and it is for that reason that l do not recommend any N.H person or most vegans follow Fresh' idea in the original post. Participation in such activity is highly likely to make sustainance on a vegan diet that much more difficult.

We want to make things run smoothly for us as vegans...we want to avoid increasing the dissonance in the diet, and that is exactly what Fresh is doing...he is making a problem worse by including those Brazil nuts without installing offsetting processes via various food safety measures.

Vegan diets are full of dissonace/clashes, and it is no wonder so many fail. And to make it worse, full spectrum nutrition is often neglected. It's a recipe' for disaster. We must reduce the dissonace in the vegan diet and bring about harmony in the diet (very very important).

Some people can eat unbalanced diets and do well, but not so many vegans have that leeway. This is no monkey talk, this is very serious stuff.

Anon 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Many people look at
> me and they stare with nothing short of amazement
> because of my hydrated, fresh, almost flawless
> skin.

About a year ago I had to take someone to an older dermatologist and I stared at his flawless skin in amazement. I asked him what he was doing and that I had never seen someone with such perfect skin. He told me he was a vegetarian. I told him that I had just gotten off of a high carb fruit intensive raw vegan diet and that it had turned me into a pre-diabetic and ruined my skin. He said he wished people wouldn't go on diets like that and said most people don't know how much sugar is in them and how bad sugar is for skin health. He also told me that I could reverse the skin damage, with time, by changing to a good diet and he seems to have been right as my skin is starting to look better now.

I am older than you and Doug Graham is even older so perhaps you've got a few more years of perfect skin time but I'll warn you that the glycation effects I would have thought to be a gradually occurring process were not for me. There seems to be some sort of tipping point. One week your skin looks great and the next week it ages at the speed of light.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TSM,
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about,
> "clashing", etc, sounds like mumbo jumbo.
>
> Just concede the point as it was demonstrated.
>
> I just threw in the ONE brazil nut just for the
> heck of it.
> It's not necessary.

I will be doing a big paper/guide on clashing because it is very very important to bring this to the public because it is not being talked about. It is perhaps the most critical subject in veganism...it is the core structure to do any diet.

For my entire raw life l have always been about reducing dissonace/clashing in the diet...l live for this stuff....the two top things l talk about is:

1). Reducing the clashing
2). Opening food matrixes and dealing with toxins

A lot of people get what l have been saying, but for some reason there are still people who think it's mumbo jumbo. I thought l was explaining it o.k, but obviously it is not coming across like l thought it was.

I think l really need to start from the beginning and lay the foundations of clash reduction and synergy, and then build levels upon the basic structure set down. I really want people to understand this, it is my number one mission.

Even when l first went into raw almost 20 years ago, my first thought was about clashes. Clashes has been first and foremost on my mind...l am always conscious of it every single day and meal, and if l have nuts and create the clash l must fix it during the week to bring back balance. Sure...we can get away with clashes for a long time, but habits create undesirable problems...so best to exercise due diligence in behaviour based on smoothing out the clashes, because if you don't you highly risk ending up on the scrap pile. In other words...get into good habits, make clash reduction strategies a priority in piutting togeather a diet, for it is very very important. Lets not ignore the current science or be too hasty in our food selections, for it may sink us if we do. It's important to have a comprehensive plan that makes sense, for we vegans have our work cut out.

Regards one and all...my dear brothers and sisters: The Sproutarian.

Good luck in your mission, TSM.

But quite a lot of unnecessary noise made about one brazil nut.

If I take it out, we can delete 99% of your previous posts, right?

Where is that delete button?

I will make a very quick and important comment, l am already well behind in work due to being here today.

Lets picture this. A steel box with a loud sterio inside. No noise can be heard because there are no holes in the steel box where sound can come out. This is the ideal diet.

The N.H diet = not too many holes, but it has some really BIG holes, and these big holes can cause lots of small holes which can open up and become big holes. Big holes = copper/zinc/iron/B12/iodine all out which lead to EPA/DHA holes.

The sproutarian diet = lots of holes everywhere, but the holes are small ones in comparison because we can fix them before they become too big. Our holes are toxins and anti-nutrients mainly if tailor the diet right.

The N.H diet = we can’t patch the big holes and eventually the box becomes full of big holes.

The sproutarian diet = we have lots and lots of tools to fix the holes and balance the diet. We can tame anti-nutrients and toxins, and we have lots of nutrition foods to balance out the diet.

Conclusion = the sprouted chia seeds, chlorella, kelp, B12 and [dare l say] ferments are the tools the N.H person needs to fix those holes, especially the first four things.

We should have been taught this stuff from our first days as vegans, but we never were because we were taught poorly via books, websites, raw food leaders.

The only person l know that teaches and thinks in terms of noise reduction in vegan diets is Tavis Bradley. I am not thrilled about his diet teachings, but he teaches noise reduction strategies. Dr Clement doesn’t teach it, David Wolfe doesn’t teach it, Dr Jubb doesn’t etc.

We need to go back to basics and make noise reduction strategies the first part of vegan education. We need to be thinking like this. It is important to make this the new wave in vegan education.

www.thesproutarian.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2014 03:23AM by The Sproutarian Man.

> Big holes = copper/zinc/iron/B12/iodine all out which lead to EPA/DHA holes.

you are hopeless and in denial of the data.

"If an Active person needs to eat as much as 30 Bananas every day to fuel their Active Lifestyle, but they have to use the Foods that Brian Clement claims existed long ago, which only have 1/30th as much SUGAR, then we would have to eat 900 Bananas every day to get the same amount of Calories."

Most varieties of fruits that are available today DID NOT EXIST long ago, they are new varieties of fruit due to hybridization and loaded with much more sugar than they used to have. Fruit may have been the original diet, but it wasn't the fruit we are currently consuming.

"If I do not consume at least 300 grams of sugar every day from the FOOD that we are Biologically DESIGNED to Eat, I'll risk losing some of my Lean Body Mass. Perhaps if I was a couch potato, I could eat much less without losing some of my Lean Body Mass, but the excess will NOT do me any HARM because the Fiber will slow down the Absorption of the Sugar and our Bodies are DESIGNED to simply turn any excess Sugar into Fat."

What is this based off of? What evidence do you have that we need those quantities of sugar each day? Too much fructose is damaging to the functioning of the liver and the metabolism of excess fructose causes uric acid, free radicals, increased blood pressure, and accelerated aging.

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] - "These results suggest that fructose promotes both AGE formation and protein oxidation possibly through the formation of hydroxyl radicals."

[jn.nutrition.org] - "In conclusion, this study presents evidence for the first time that long-term fructose consumption negatively affects the normal aging process."

[www.health.harvard.edu]

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] - "Other major contributors to fructose intake such as total fruit juice or fructose rich fruits (apples and oranges) were also associated with a higher risk of gout (P values for trend <0.05)."


So basically, not only is a predominantly fruit diet deficient in iodine, B12, and DHA (women may be an exception with DHA), but the only way to get anywhere near sufficient levels of iron and zinc (but still low and this doesn't even account for poor bioavailability) is to bombard your liver with fructose.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2014 05:23AM by jtprindl.

>Too much fructose is damaging to the functioning of the liver and the metabolism of excess fructose causes uric acid, free radicals, increased blood pressure, and accelerated aging.


It's a good thing people don't eat "fructose"

and the studies don't show all these damages from eating "fruit"

you do not know the iodine status of fruit eaters so you are wrong there.
you are right on b12, as with any diet, measures must be taken.
DHA amts are unknown so you are wrong there.

bombard is your word.
nourish the organs with raw food would be mine.

why are you so desperately clinging to these antiquated ideas?

I mean, they were disproven a couple hours ago!

Suez, I don't need any diet advice from anyone unless I ask for it. I have tons of experiences in this life, enough to safely guide me until I die, and one of which I've found over and over to be true is that the answer is almost always within me. That's why I would never follow the advice of these Black Holes like Spouter and the Pringle.

Anon 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Suez, I don't need any diet advice from anyone
> unless I ask for it. I have tons of experiences in
> this life, enough to safely guide me until I die,
> and one of which I've found over and over to be
> true is that the answer is almost always within
> me. That's why I would never follow the advice of
> these Black Holes like Spouter and the Pringle.


Fine - but if you end up looking like Doug Graham in a few years you can't say you weren't warned. Maybe some other reader can benefit from the words of a dermatologist with incredibly good skin if you can't.

"It's a good thing people don't eat "fructose""

Except they do, considering it's in fruit and particularly rich in dates, figs, and bananas.

"and the studies don't show all these damages from eating "fruit""

They show damages from a sugar that fruit contains a lot of and these damages are not found in glucose or sucrose. One study shows fructose from fruits increases risk of gout: [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

"you do not know the iodine status of fruit eaters so you are wrong there.
you are right on b12, as with any diet, measures must be taken.
DHA amts are unknown so you are wrong there."

Iodine is found in very small amounts in fruits and vegetables. Besides, the RDA for iodine is extremely low and is only sufficient enough to protect against goiter or hypothyroidism but doesn't address the protective benefits iodine has on the entire body.

www.gedroicfamilypractice.com/Iodine.doc
[drlwilson.com]

Using your preferred source (WHO), who recommend 300-500/mg DHA per day, you'd have to eat more than 7 grams of ALA per day to achieve this with the 4% conversion rate that has been well-documented in multiple studies. And keep in mind, most of the studies done on the health benefits of DHA are far beyond 300-500 mg. Women, who have much higher conversion rates don't need to worry about this as much, but it's a bigger problem for men.

"bombard is your word.
nourish the organs with raw food would be mine."

And one of those organs, the liver, pays the consequences of heavy fructose consumption (as in dates, bananas, figs, etc).

"I mean, they were disproven a couple hours ago!"

Yeah, that never happened.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "It's a good thing people don't eat "fructose""
>
> Except they do, considering it's in fruit and
> particularly rich in dates, figs, and bananas.
>


not the same thing.

and fructose is in greens as well.

do tell what the Safe intake of fructose is.
People are dying to know.

> "and the studies don't show all these damages from
> eating "fruit""
>
> They show damages from a sugar that fruit contains
> a lot of and these damages are not found in
> glucose or sucrose. One study shows fructose from
> fruits increases risk of gout:
> [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

oooh, a study, very impressive.

do you have gout?
I don't.
why is that?

>
> "you do not know the iodine status of fruit eaters
> so you are wrong there.
> you are right on b12, as with any diet, measures
> must be taken.
> DHA amts are unknown so you are wrong there."
>
> Iodine is found in very small amounts in fruits
> and vegetables.

good thing we only need a little.

If you were paying attention, I provided a link that showed the micrograms
of iodine in samples of greens, when extrapolated to the sample diet I gave, it met the rda.

but don't let that little factoid get in your way.


Besides, the RDA for iodine is
> extremely low and is only sufficient enough to
> protect against goiter or hypothyroidism but
> doesn't address the protective benefits iodine has
> on the entire body.
>


protective in your mind

> www.gedroicfamilypractice.com/Iodine.doc
> [drlwilson.com]
>
> Using your preferred source (WHO), who recommend
> 300-500/mg DHA per day, you'd have to eat more
> than 7 grams of ALA per day to achieve this with
> the 4% conversion rate that has been
> well-documented in multiple studies. And keep in
> mind, most of the studies done on the health
> benefits of DHA are far beyond 300-500 mg. Women,
> who have much higher conversion rates don't need
> to worry about this as much, but it's a bigger
> problem for men.
>

what is the difference what who recommends. If I showed you that GOD and jesus and mohammed recommended 100mg, you would come up with some lame excuse.



Adequate intake = 160mg/day:

[www.dhaomega3.org]


(let me save you some typing regarding the above.... jtprindl says, "but we need more than the adequate intake"

but of course that is not the issue. the issue is adequate intake.


---
250mg/day

In -2009, The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published its recommendations for PUFA (203):

an omega-3 fatty acid intake of 2 g/day alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) and 250 mg/day long-chain omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)
------

Studies of ALA metabolism in healthy young men indicate that approximately 8% of dietary ALA is converted to EPA and 0-4% is converted to DHA (7). In healthy young women, approximately 21% of dietary ALA is converted to EPA and 9% is converted to DHA (8)

[lpi.oregonstate.edu]


let's see, what will sue and you say, "what linus pauling! he was an idiot".

----------------------------



What is bizarre is why you expect people to accept your math (so that you can justify your preferred diet) while no symptoms.

not logical. sad, really.


> "bombard is your word.
> nourish the organs with raw food would be mine."
>
> And one of those organs, the liver, pays the
> consequences of heavy fructose consumption (as in
> dates, bananas, figs, etc).

liver functioning fine.

explain.



>
> "I mean, they were disproven a couple hours ago!"
>
> Yeah, that never happened.

well, it did, except for your ego.

I think you'll find in a couple decades that saying to yourself for the first time in your life, "hmm, maybe I was wrong there" will be a very freeing sensation.