Which one would you recommend? Is it a matter of personal preference? What is the difference between them?

Neither. You can check them out from your public library. If it doesn't have them both, you can do an interlibrary loan request.

I agree with coconutcream when she wrote: they just make stuff up.

if "they" just make stuff up, who can we believe? there are so many different studies and so on which makes it confusing to beginners.

tristani, the best way to test which raw food diet is the right one, is to tune with your body. It may be hard at the start, but you will develop the sensitivity to hear your body. Your body will tell you what foods make it happy. Actually, it tells you already. All it takes is to listen.


Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

They are probably right about some things and wrong about others. I think Cousens is right when he says we need to supplement for B12. I think he is wrong when he suggests that sweet fruit is somehow a poison. I think Graham is right when he says we should limit fats. I think he is wrong when he suggests than more than 10% is a poison.

There is a happy medium.

Concentrate on the good: lots of raw unprocessed f+v, enough essential fats in the right proportions, and adequate vitamins, minerals, fibers, and essential amino acids. The rest is fine tuning. But most people ignore these basic needs and get hung up on dogma because it is easier to remember a single small epithet like 801010 or "sweet fruit is bad" than to make sure your o63 ratio is in the 2:1-4:1 ballpark and your zinc intake is adequate etc.

Whenever one makes an extreme claim, it is not a bad idea to retain your skepticism, at least until there is some clarification and a good body of evidence to support it.

rawgosia and arugula, thanks. i beleive you have to listen to your body more than anything. i hear it, i just don't always listen. it's hard though when you hear one thing and then the next day, you hear that it's bad for you. but, i'll just keep trying to stay raw.

I would like to know what Gabriel Cousens is allegedly making up. He does real research, and understands exactly where modern medicine errs. If all the rest of the MD's in this world understoo what he does, then we would have almost no disease in this world.

The idea that germs cause disease is only half the story, and too few doctors understand the other half: that the body has to be compromised in some way (acid pH, toxins) in order to provide the breeding ground for germs.

That is the genius of what Dr. Cousens teaches. Forget the fat issue, it's for transition diets. He's not anti-fruit, he just says not to eat fruit until your candida goes away, if you have candida.

If you read his book you'll see that he teaches fruit as the lifetime diet goal.

I swear he is the most misunderstood raw foodist ever.

well-i have yet to get the 811 book and i will say i am eager to get it. I did get the cousens rainbow green live-food book and i really believe what he says.like what you said sunshine79-about the body has to be compromised in some way in order to provide the breeding ground for disease.I think i don't know enough of anything to actually debate anything but i am very impressed with this man.also-because of what you said sunshine79-about the fruit and cousens...i need to re-read and re-investigate his book and study it more.i also like alot of what arugula...especially the happy medium.thanks so much to the both of you...it helps us newer ones try to get a handle on all of this.hugs taylor

sunshine79,

I like what Jeremiah said about the Cousens' approach to the raw diet:

-------------
From: Jeremiah (aca712d2.ipt.aol.com)
Subject: Re: Low Sugar Diet..Gab Cousens...Rainbow Diet
Date: May 26, 2004 at 9:31 am PST

In Reply to: Low Sugar Diet..Gab Cousens...Rainbow Diet posted by Chase on May 26, 2004 at 1:29 am:

Gabriel Cousen's theories are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of sugar metabolism, and quite frankly, he doesn't appear to have the slightest idea of what he's talking about. He is contradictory in his recommendations, doesn't seem to understand the relation between fat and carbohydrate in human cellular metabolism, and advocates an unsustainable dietary plan. He recommends a low fat and low sugar diet which is the paradox you now find yourself entrapped in. Anyone claiming to follow the rainbow green diet for a long period is eating a massive percentage of their caloric intake from fat, although most of them seem to be comfortably oblivious to the situation. See Gabriel's "Concious Eating" for evidence that he does indeed understand the negative health consequences of consuming a diet high in raw fats.

A vegetable diet is unsustainable, despite the dubious attraction of rationalizing through appeals to maternal authority, as you seem to be resorting to. Eating our veggies is important, but unless you want to starve you're going to have to make a choice, as implied by the title of Dr Graham's new book, "Fruit or Fat". Vegetables cannot give you the caloric density you need to thrive in good health.

On the one hand, we have a sustainable raw diet based on sweet fruit with minimal amounts of raw plant fats, aligned with our physiology and cellular metabolism. No contradictions there.

On the other hand we have contradictory recommendations predicated on the assumption that not only will we be foolish enough to ignore blatant opposing statements (fat is bad, sugar is bad, therefore eat lots of fat and pretend you're not) as well as the insulting assumption that those of us seeking a natural diet will believe that expensive powders and unproven elixers (which we are told are necessary on this wonderful Alice in Wonderland diet, all of which we can conveniently purchase from the guru attempting to sell us on this Catch-22 situation in the first place) are somehow natural health foods, whereas fruit off a tree isn't.

It's not a difficult choice for me, personally.

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

A great deal of his advice is contrived. I particularly object to the limits on fruit. If you do follow his advice and limit fruit and also fat, you still have no choice but to get most of your kcals from sugar, because starches are in very short supply in a raw vegan diet. Glucose is glucose and fructose is fructose, whether it comes from romaine lettuce or a peach and it's downright silly to implicate fruit as a criminal because of this.

Phases I, II, III: contrived. Phase I is especially highly contrived. The ayurvedic stuff is highly contrived. The idea of cyanobacteria being a good source of essential fatty acids is contrived: it contains as fat only 1-4% of its total kcals: not a good source. Ditto for purslane. And those are just off the top of my head.

The problem with Cousens is that he mixes some acceptable, perfectly good sound medicine in with some contrivations but he doesn't distinguish the one from the other in his writings. If he provided references, that would help a lot. Then the reader could see the basis for some of his statements. Those without references could be interpreted as possibly or definitely contrived.

The idea that fruit causes candida is contrived. We all have candida. We have 10x as many bacterial cells in our body as human cells. But fruit in itself isn't the cause for overgrowth.

You can very well get viral infections or bacterial infections that are out of control and pathogenic without the added problem of a poor lifestyle. If you don't believe it, breathe in some anthrax and prove me wrong. It would be easier to take a microbiology course. Or even easier to read the Tortora, Funk, and Case text, it is currently the one that is used to teach the 3000 level microbiology course at universities.

Ok realistically though, Dr. Cousens understands cellular metabolism. It's basic biology & in order to pass even just the MCAT you have to be able to manipulate such science left right backwards & forwards.

If you're eating very low sugar, then you can eat more fat. There is no way in heck I could've become a raw foodist by starting out on a high-fruit diet, and I suspect that a lot of other people will feel the same way. Just even the sight of sweet fruit made me cringe.

Dr. Cousens advocates starting out low sugar, high fat, then moving towards a higher fruit diet. Worked for me. I immediately took to the diet & never looked back, it was a really comfortable, happy, feel good way to go raw. I ate lots of zucchini, bell peppers, cucumbers, leaves, all sorts of green things and moderate fat... now I want less greens & less fat in lieu of more sweet fruits, but the staple of my diet is still the non-sugary fruits. They feel the cleanest.

Recently I've also occasionally done high fruit, tender greens and low fat and that feels good too. Either way works for me.

I think the Rainbow Green diet is misunderstood perhaps because people maybe aren't used to eating zucchini mono-meals, but I've been eating vegetables like that since I was a kid so for me it's normal. Anyway I don't know how much fat I ate on phase 1 but I lost weight and felt great so who cared. I loved it.

>Dr. Cousens understands cellular metabolism.

Yes, he does. He does have an excellent grasp of the foundation sciences, unlike many of the other book writers who have essentially zero formal background. I can't fault him for that and he is outstanding in that regard. But, I wish he would preface his extrapolations.

Arugula, Dr. Cousens provides plenty of references as well as doing his own research.

A microbiology course taken at a normal college will only serve to steer one in the wrong direction as it is erroneously based on the teachings of Louis Pasteur, who really, seriously has recently been realized to be a huge fraud when his family recently released to the public his original notes. They had no idea he faked his research.

If the blood pH is healthy, infection isn't possible. I'll breath in anthrax any day.

Unfortunately the entirety of microbiology and vaccines is based on Pasteur and correcting his wrongs will prove to be a monumental task, as he is basically the father of modern medicine. Yikes.

What Dr. Cousens teaches is quite exraordinary- it's stated very subtly though, one could easily miss it on a first read but in fact it's all there- if you contemplate for a moment what he's telling us.

Get it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2007 03:59AM by sunshine79.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from all too well. It is a common problem on this board, but fortunately not a universal one.

the enchantress, I should have also said that my personal experience has been that I gradually progressed to more and more fruit and less and less fat in my diet, quite spontaneously. I have no problem with eating low fat, but this is not the goal that I tried to achieve, but rather the effortless outcome that I observed. I do not like following externally-imposed rules.

Fruitfully,
Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Wow, looks like I opened up a can of worms! Thanks to everyone for your input. I was just pondering the question after briefly checking out "Sunfood" at the natural foods store. I personally believe %100 in listening to one's own body to find what works best for them, but I often find that I need a little guidance and/or other opinions/info to test against my own...kind of like physical brainstorming .

Cousens in a nutshell: He has made a raw verson of ayurveda. The doshas became biochemical individuality. He is strongly anti fruit. He doesn't recognize that fat causes candida. He blames it on fruit. Very much into supplementation, superfoods, ayurvedic therapies, digestive enzymes.

Wolfe in a nutshell: He is a marketeer. I read the 1st edition of Sunfood Diet, which was essentially a marketing tool for selling products that are sold on Nature's First Law online raw website. I suspect the 2nd edition has been updated to include all the new high cost superfoods and anstrom mineral and supplements and cleanses that have been introduced since the first edition.

Wolfe is a student of Cousens. So if you must choose between the two, get Cousens, as Wolfe borrows from him, and you might as well get the original source.

I highly recommend getting "The 80/10/10 Diet". I wrote about it in this thread called "My copy of The 80/10/10 Diet arrived today ".

Hey arugula,

<<You can very well get viral infections or bacterial infections that are out of control and pathogenic without the added problem of a poor lifestyle. If you don't believe it, breathe in some anthrax and prove me wrong. It would be easier to take a microbiology course. Or even easier to read the Tortora, Funk, and Case text, it is currently the one that is used to teach the 3000 level microbiology course at universities.>>

What's your opinion on parasites and a clean raw food diet then? And in more generality, as sunshine brought up, what do you think of the Bechamp/Pasteur paradigm?

For more info on matters relating to Germ Theory/Pleomorphism and the theoretical framework of modern medicine, see for example [members.iinet.net.au].

cheers,
J

I don't think much of alternative theories unless there is strong evidence. There are too many variables and although there are specific instances where weakness of the host is a factor, in general I don't think it applies across the board.

Here is a specific example: the capsule of S. pyogenes is composes of hyaluronic acid, a native polysaccharide in our tissues. It is an antigenic disguise that prevents recognition of the streptocci by phagocytes in the immune system.

Those pathogenic bacteria are very clever, they have evolved sophisticated means to evade capture and destruction, and they continue to evolve.

And also with cancers, it doesn't matter how healthy the host is, if the carcinogenic dose is sufficiently, it will develop. Skin cancer rates skyrocket with age.

They say with some types of cancers that we would all get them if we didn't die from something else first.

Bryan,
I wholeheartedly agree with the 80/10/10 idea. Anyone who stays on a raw diet long enough will eventually get there, I'm sure. However, this topic was started by the enchantress, who might well be just starting out.

Please tell me Bryan, how does one go from eating cheeseburgers (as I was) to the next day eating just apples & oranges and such, without running into problems? You need a transition diet, and Cousens provides that. Did you see Minou33's post about having to have gallbladder surgery as a result of jumping too quickly into high-fruit, low-fat? SURGERY, Bryan- I think that is a way more major risk to consider than whatever temporary minor problems might crop up from too much fat (though I personally didn't experience anything bad).

Arugula, in a healthy, normal pH body the immune system is the 2nd line of defense. In most people today however it is the only defense, because the blood terrain and henceforth everything else is already compromised. I went to school for biochemisrty and trust me, things make way more sense this way- Dr. Bechamp had it right, Pasteur didnt.

I like what Tristani says, "I'll just keep trying to stay raw."

Anybody who does that plus keeps an open mind (whether they know a lot or a little), they'll do fine on raw.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2007 09:11AM by suncloud.

sunshine79,

There is the route I took. Go from SAD, to an unhealthy raw diet, then to a healthy raw diet.

There is another way.

Start with where you are in SAD, Each day, try to incorporate more fresh fruits and vegetables into your diet. When you feel uncomfortable that you're eating too much fresh fruits and vegetables and not enough cooked foods, back off to a comfortable position. Play there for a while. When the current place becomes super easeful, start moving again towards increasing the amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables.

In this fashion, you don't have to learn a bunch of junk philosophy that is going to get you sick and that you will need to forget in the future. Just start where you are, and take a small step forward.

sunshine79 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>Did you see Minou33's post
> about having to have gallbladder surgery as a
> result of jumping too quickly into high-fruit,
> low-fat?

I don't believe that surgery was required due
to such a change in diet. I would like to hear
the physician's opinions. I would eat my entire
straw hat collection if they implicated a high
fiber whole foods diet as causal for the problem.

> Arugula, in a healthy, normal pH body the immune
> system is the 2nd line of defense. In most people
> today however it is the only defense, because the
> blood terrain and henceforth everything else is
> already compromised.

It seems to me that you feel this one factor is
much more important to the body than it is.
There are mechanisms that very strongly regulate
pH of the blood to a very narrow range. The urine
is a little different though.

pH is not everything. It is only one thing.

>I went to school for
> biochemisrty

What school was that? What textbook did you use?

>and trust me,

This is impossible based on your input here.

>things make way more
> sense this way- Dr. Bechamp had it right, Pasteur
> didnt.

No, I am not getting such an impression from my
readings. Perhaps you could provide some important
paper references and I will read them if they are
available.

arugula,

Don't talk to me that way.

Believe whatever you want.


Bryan,
Ok that makes sense. Still wouldn't have worked for me though, as my diet already consisted of mostly raw fruits & veggies, plus lots of meat.

I just don't like to see a diet being bashed that can really work for certain people, as it did for me. Ever since day 1 of doing raw this way, I've never gone a day being less than 50% raw- no effort, no major falling off the wagon.

>I think Cousens is right when he says we need to supplement for B12. I think he is wrong when he suggests that sweet fruit is somehow a poison. I think Graham is right when he says we should limit fats. I think he is wrong when he suggests than more than 10% is a poison.

There is a happy medium.<

Wow, that's almost exactly what I believe, Aragula. Thanks for expressing it so eloquently it for me. ;-)

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

I am so disappointed that there is no support for those with candida and needing to deal with it on this board. Right now Cousens' diet is my only hope. It is very demoralizing to read him slammed like this. Carbs and sugars have been really hurting me and I am going to give his phases of diets a try. With too much sweet fruit I am in terrible pain, especially my feet.

Avocadess,

I have Candida. I didn't follow either of the two diets mentioned. (Although, I'm thinking of purchasing Dr. Graham's book after doing this awhile.) I've been modified raw for about 2.5 years. I don't believe that the above posts were to "slam" or to be unsupportive of you or any Candida sufferer. As with all posts, one is offering their opinion and experience. I don't disagree with the posters. What I have found is that one needs to judge by one's own body what works and what doesn't. I muscle test food before I eat it, actually before I put it into my shopping cart so that I know it's going to strengthen my body rather than making it weaker. Prior to eating the item, I muscle test again because my body's requirements may be different than at the time I purchased.

I found that diet alone will not help Candida. There may be other issues involved such as psychological. I'm not saying that that is your problem. I'm just saying that in some cases, this has been found. Right now, I'm using an an oil treatment along with supplementation in addition to diet restrictions. Acidolphilus and beneficial bacteria are supposed to help. This is where fermented veggies come in or Acidolphilus from other sources.

It depends on what has happened to your body in the past. For me, many antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, Xantac, birth control pills contributed to my problem in addition to my diet. I don't take any of that anymore. (I stopped more than 6 years ago.) I did a 10 day water fast which, hopefully, got rid of some of those prescription medications from my body.

I did find that oranges, especially, made the Candida flare up. Now, I only eat them when they muscle test strong. I have eaten them in the past few days with okay results but last week I suffered after eating them. They muscle tested weak last week and I ate them anyway. Oh, well.

Anyhow, do what you know to do as by evidenced by your mind/body/spirit to be the right thing for you as only you will have to live with the consequences.

Best regards,
Therese

Hi Avocadess,
Well I, for one, support you! ;-) I know this board leans heavily toward 8-1-1, but it's not the only game in town. And in the mid-1990s this board was fruitarian-centric, until people started reporting some problems, at which point the paradigm changed and everyone started adding greens to the mix. Where will we be 10 years from now? The smart money is on the folks who are reading the list but also following their own instincts.

I have at times eaten a raw diet very high in vegetables, and I didn't have to eat 'massive amounts of fats' in order to do it. It was one of the best periods in my raw food history. I did eat more than 10% fat, and I also ate some fruit. It was great, and I felt wonderful.

Candida is something I had when I was transitioning to the raw diet, and I had had it for years, so it took me quite awhile to get it out of my system. I think you're on the right track.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]