[fanaticcook.blogspot.com]

A low fat diet that includes plenty of grains and some meat has a vastly different nutrient content than a low fat diet that does not.

If you like it and it works for you, go for it. Obviously, a 6% fat raw food diet doesn't work for everyone, and that's more than OK.

suncloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A low fat diet that includes plenty of grains and
> some meat has a vastly different nutrient content
> than a low fat diet that does not.
>
> If you like it and it works for you, go for it.
> Obviously, a 6% fat raw food diet doesn't work for
> everyone, and that's more than OK.


nutrient content is not the issue for the purpose of my post.

the issue is those who claim X (say 5 or 10%) level of FAT intake is dangerous, in opposition to the evidence such as the okinawan data and other evidence, while the evidence that they present is

"people I know failed on 955, thus 955 is dangerous"

failing to take other factors into account, like b12 and others

or simply saying "no I don't have the data that isolates the fat level as the cause" would be more honest. would avoid a lot of nonsense.

>Obviously, a 6% fat raw food diet doesn't work for everyone, and that's more than OK.


Of course it's ok. but you've just made the same mistake as gosia.

"obviously"?

Think about it this way, if I do a survey of 100 people eating 30% fat raw diet and 70 of them fail, may I say that the fat content is the reason for the failure?

Is it possible that there are other factors that causes one to fail?

Or how about this? I was eating a "low" calcium diet and I failed.
was it the calcium? or was it the fat content of the diet?
would you like for me to list the 100 other reasons why someone could fail?

Especially since people DO NOT report fat deficiency symptoms, nor do they accurately report ANYTHING.

you see, you're just LABELING the diet as per the fat content, therefore failure MUST be the fat?

We cannot simply say, well this person was doing ok on a 25% fat diet, lowered their fat content and failed. They could ALSO HAVE depleted their b12, you see?
They could also have freaked out when their comfort foods FAT were reduced.

homones levels (control body functions) depend on protein and fats. So a 9055 is a too much homonal stress. For example, phenylalanine (essential amino) can be really low in 9055 raw food diet. This alone could mess up dopamine (through tyrosine) and maybe induce depression and other stuff. Lysine is another one. There could be many other causes of diet failure from the fat too. If one person can do it, doesn't mean everybody can. It is not a precise science. Wild animals simply die and nobody knows why. If they don't adjust, they just drop.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2014 07:14PM by Panchito.

fresh, I can only speak from my own experience of nearly 3 decades raw vegan, just as you can only speak from yours. In my case, I was not able to stay raw consistently until I made only one simple change - adding just a few nuts and seeds to my diet.

BINGO! I went from total frustration and feelings of "failure", to the realization that I could be healthy and raw consistently. That has made me very happy.

So to everyone out there that goes yo yo all the time from a strict 80-10-10 or 95-5-5 raw vegan diet to overeating stuff that makes you feel bad, my position is that there may be a better, healthier raw food diet option for you, and that nuts and seeds are not the evil villains you may have been led to believe.

I agree that taking B12 is important.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2014 08:24PM by suncloud.

suncloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh, I can only speak from my own experience of
> nearly 3 decades raw vegan, just as you can only
> speak from yours. In my case, I was not able to
> stay raw consistently until I made only one simple
> change - adding just a few nuts and seeds to my
> diet.
>
> BINGO! I went from total frustration and feelings
> of "failure", to the realization that I could be
> healthy and raw consistently. That has made me
> very happy.
>
> So to everyone out there that goes yo yo all the
> time from a strict 80-10-10 or 95-5-5 raw vegan
> diet to overeating stuff that makes you feel bad,
> my position is that there may be a better,
> healthier raw food diet option for you, and that
> nuts and seeds are not the evil villains you may
> have been led to believe.
>
> I agree that taking B12 is important.


brilliant! thanks for sharing. certainly something for anyone to consider from your experience.

and if someone else has found that they do fine without nuts and seeds,
that would provide some anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

my point is simply related to blanket claims about X fat diet being dangerous, without real evidence, as I have said.
that would tend to

Hey thanks fresh.

It looks like you might have had something to add to that last sentence?

Yes, I think it would be interesting to follow some raw food people on different types of diets and have them record their intake and exercise level for, say 5 years. Then compare the results.

There seem to be 3 general approaches to raw food diet:

1) fat restriction, with no restriction on fruits and greens.
2) fruit restriction, with no restriction on greens, lots of sprouts, and little or no restriction on whole food fats.
3) Inclusion of fruits, greens, sprouts, and moderate whole food fats.

Of course there's more raw food diets out there, but since fewer people fall into those categories, they could followed as case studies.

It seems like until several well-designed studies on the different raw food approaches are completed, we really don't have evidence to draw any firm conclusions. Even then, it would not be accurate to say we had "proof" that one particular diet is best for everyone. We might learn though which diet led to the best blood test results or the most consistent adherence.

And of course, the results would depend on self-reports, so not considered 100% reliable. People forget or measure wrong or whatever.

Eating low fat in a cold zone in the winter say anywhere North of San Diego where the Vitamin D line exists is suicidal...

ignore my fragment earlier.

what your 3 approaches means to me is that it really doesn't matter too much what you eat . we are quite adaptable to many variations.

just a comment...

>>>> I can only speak from my own experience of nearly 3 decades raw vegan, just as you can only speak from yours. In my case, I was not able to stay raw consistently until I made only one simple change - adding just a few nuts and seeds to my diet.
BINGO! I went from total frustration and feelings of "failure", to the realization that I could be healthy and raw consistently. That has made me very happy.


Now either you don't know/care why that worked, or you think it's the fat intake, I don't know.

my comment to that would be that there are other reasons that may have worked for you.
- you were a bit low in calories
- you were holding on to addictions that the nuts satisfied
- nuts/seeds have similar effects as cooked foods on the body
- couldn't handle the nervous energy without the settling down feeling of nuts.
etc.

I just try to consider all options instead of making common assumptions.