I know that scientifically, sugar is sugar. But how can the packaging not make a difference? I stopped eating candy because I got tired of the highs and lows it would give me. I also found myself unable to stop desiring more candy after eating a single piece, and eliminating it was the key to stopping horrible menstrual cramps.
I have never had any of this with fruit.

Cute kiddo Coco!



My website: The Coconut Chronicles

It refreshing to know that finally we can have a scientific debate on the value of fruits in the diet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2008 03:39PM by madinah.

When one comes up with a scientific theory, all it takes is one counter example to disprove a theory. So if one says that scientifically speaking, fruit is unhealthy for people, all it takes is one example of a healthy person eating a significant amount of fruit, and this disproves that theory.

We have many individual on this forum who are healthy and eating a lot of fruit, myself included.

For the kind of person who does not want to take 100% responsibility for their health, who needs someone else, an external authority on whom other people depend for their health needs, the Hippocrates program is an excellent candidate for their needs. The Hippocrates program appeals to this kind of individual, allows for a significant amount of cooked foods in the diet while eating a lot of sprouts and greens and wheatgrass juices. A person following the Hippocrates program can improve their health and be healthier than they have ever been in their life. That being said, they haven't necessarily gotten all there is to get.

For people who have an interest in eating all raw, the Hippocrates program will not work, and in fact they recommend eating 20% by volume cooked, 80% by volume raw. In terms of caloric intake, this could translate to 80% of calories cooked, 20% of calories raw, given that the foods they recommend for raw foods are calorie sparse, since sweet fruits are omitted.

Hi Bryan,
Good observations. No one has "all there is go get" on any program or on any subject matter. It is an ongoing learning process. Brian is always challenging his own beliefs and changing direction as new info becomes available. They used to promote Rejuvelac, but now they are vehemently against it based on newer information.

The 80% raw food is a guideline as it is unrealistic for most people to consume 100% raw food. They will tell you to get as close as you can to 100% raw, with 80% being a minimal target. I've never seen them serve cooked food at their facility and have been there dozens of times.

The other topic we did not touch on is that unripe fruit is acidic, and most of the fruit in the stores is picked unripe.

I do not understand how 20 percent cooked food translate into 80 percent calories, what about 80 percent cooked, is that 320 percent calories intake? One might not like cooked food but the truth should not be misrepresented. Hippocrates program is a guideline, you can do it being 100 percent raw.

The other point I should mention is that this advice is for most of the population. Responsible lifestyle changes the equation significantly. If one is very active, more fruit can be consumed. Keep in mind that many of the people at Hippocrates are facing significant health challenges. Others are there to gain knowledge and optimal health.

While I’m new to this list, I would think most people here are much more responsible about their lifestyle and health. In this case, he would be the first to admit fruit consumption could be increased.

Another thing they stress at Hippocrates is a positive attitude and lifestyle. Brian regularly states in his lectures that you can follow the food program 100% and if you don’t have a determination to live and be healthy you not heal.

We’ve all seen cases of people who smoked all their life, consumed massive amounts of meat and dairy and lived to old age. While this is a small majority of the population it can happen. In this case, a good portion of it is due to a having a fulfilled meaningful live. This alone can mitigate other negative factors and produce results contrary to what one would expect.

acticeinternet

I love your site with all the answers by adio. I realy liked your highly intelegent, and authoriatative first post in the thread.

I need to know about the the B12 that Brian talks about. What exactly is it and where do you get it? Is he talking about fermented foods?

thanks
elnatural

Thanks for the comments. I'm new at this (raw food lifestyle < 6 months) and am basically a parrot repeating what I have learned in the lectures from Brian. I will see Brian on Tueesday and will get you an answer on what he recommends for B12.

As far as the site goes, we will have hundreds of Q & A's posted over the next few months. We are adding them as time permits. I've also started videotaping the lectures and will be posting video excerpts as well.
Rich

Witarianin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> There is variety of tests, that could show
> different points, depending on how you construct
> the tests.
>
> If "norms" for tests were set by Brian/Institute's
> doctors, of to what relation are those to US/ raw
> foodists, or people NOT drinking wheatgrass
> juice(Me)?
>
> How about We ask for a panel of Raw gurus,/
> Natural Hygiene Practitioners/ raw , vegan
> doctors, Successful Athletes, HEALTHY, HAPPY, Good
> looking people...
> To set a ground rules for such tests.Norms, Lows'
> Highs, too much's and so on.
> So, where is norm for Energy levels?
> Can it be read from blood?

Good point! I agree, Brian shouldn't get to "design" the test. (An independent third party should have to draw the blood and conduct the test as well...) It should be standardized in some way, or reviewed by a panel of folks. Or the complete results should be make public so that a variety of people, not just Brian and the Hipp folks, can analyze and comment. Not that he is a shyster or would fake the results, just that he has a vested interest in the results (his challenge) and has put the cart (conclusion) before the horse (hypothesis) already. He didn't say, "gee, i'd like to know how a fruitarian's blood would stack up", he claims to know in advance. That makes it way more likely that the test design and results interpretation would be spun a certain way, even unconsciously.

OOPS. See below.


<sigh>



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2008 11:49PM by Lee_123.

I don't care what Brian Clements thinks of the food I eat. It's not his body that I'm putting food into everyday. And, I don't care what Brian Clements eats. It's not my body he is putting food into everyday.

To each his or her own.

Bon appetite!

If Brian Clements wants a fight, why not take on ConAgra or the federal subsidies for chemical laden cow flesh. Let's subsidize organic farms. Why not take up that fight?

Sounds like a publicity thing. There are a lot more important things to argue about. What my fellow raw/vegans are eating isn't on my "must change" list.


Lee

[www.dhamma.org]

madinah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do not understand how 20 percent cooked food
> translate into 80 percent calories.

raw food is not as calorie-dense as cooked food. it would be very easy for 20% cooked food (by volume) to equal 80% of the calories, particularly (as bryan notes) if the raw food that is being eaten is mostly vegetables, which is very low calorie. the truth is not being misrepresented.

quick example i just threw into nutritiondata.com: say for one meal you consumed 1 cup each of raw asparagus, raw beans, raw broccoli, raw carrots, and raw cucumber, and 3 cups of lettuce (for a total of 8 cups, or 80% raw) and you also consumed 1 cup of cooked brown rice and 1 cup of tofu (total of 2 cups, or 20% cooked by volume). that would be 601 calories total. the cooked portion of that (brown rice and tofu) equals 446 of those calories, or 74% of the calories in the whole meal.

Some of the points on fruit he has made in various lectures are as follows.

1) IF one is healthy “ripe fruit” should be limited to 15% of their diet.

I haven't encountered any evidence of this.

2) Athletes can increase the amount of fruit in their diet based on athletic activity.

I don't disagree with this.

3) People in the conquest of disease should have ZERO fruit until they are healthy.

This is crazy.

4) The sugar in fruit feeds cancer cells and viruses . If one has a PET scan and sugar is put into the blood, the sugar lights up around the cancer cells. You will also see a trail (glow) of where the cancer will spread. This point is well documented by numerous studies and is not a theory.

This is crazy.

5) The body does not differentiate sugar from fruit, candy, honey etc.
Brian also mentioned that he would debate anyone on this issue, so if you have an expert with a differing opinion, I will arrange a live a conference call and everyone will be invited to listen and make their own determination.

This is actually true depending on how you read it. The sugar component is not necessarily much different; glucose is glucose, sucrose is sucrose, fructose is fructose. But what is different is the fiber and phytochemicals present in fruit, which change the overall effect: how quickly it dumps into the bloodstream, how the body defends itself from glycation and oxidation, etc. They are decidedly different in outcome.

Our bodies were designed to use glucose as a primary fuel. Sugar is not poison. It's fuel. We did not evolve for fructose to be the primary fuel (or proteins or fats, for that matter) but it can jump into the glycolysis cycle anyway, just at a different point.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
.
>
> 3) People in the conquest of disease should have
> ZERO fruit until they are healthy.
>
> This is crazy.
>
> 4) The sugar in fruit feeds cancer cells and
> viruses . If one has a PET scan and sugar is put
> into the blood, the sugar lights up around the
> cancer cells. You will also see a trail (glow) of
> where the cancer will spread. This point is well
> documented by numerous studies and is not a
> theory.
>
> This is crazy.

Here is one point of reference I found in about 30 seconds on google, complete with an image... THere are dozens more
[imaging.cancer.gov]
excerpt below...

PET Scan

The positron emission tomography (PET) scan creates computerized images of chemical changes, such as sugar metabolism, that take place in tissue. Typically, the patient is given an injection of a substance that consists of a combination of a sugar and a small amount of radioactively labeled sugar. The radioactive sugar can help in locating a tumor, because cancer cells take up or absorb sugar more avidly than other tissues in the body.

After receiving the radioactive sugar, the patient lies still for about 60 minutes while the radioactively labeled sugar circulates throughout the body. If a tumor is present, the radioactive sugar will accumulate in the tumor. The patient then lies on a table, which gradually moves through the PET scanner 6 to 7 times during a 45-60-minute period. The PET scanner is used to detect the distribution of the sugar in the tumor and in the body. By the combined matching of a CT scan with PET images, there is an improved capacity to discriminate normal from abnormal tissues. A computer translates this information into the images that are interpreted by a radiologist.

PET scans may be helpful in evaluating and staging recurrent disease (cancer that has come back). PET scans are beginning to be used to check if a treatment is working - if a tumor cells are dying and thus using less sugar.

Link to image showing lit up cancer cells..

[imaging.cancer.gov]

----------------------------------
I'm mot qualified to comment on your last item, although I agree with parts of it about phytonutrients etc. I will get an answer from Brian and post here next week all points in this entire thread that I'm not qualified enough to give a proper response...

activeinternet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typically, the patient is given an
> injection of a substance that consists of a
> combination of a sugar and a small amount of
> radioactively labeled sugar.

Sugar is not fruit. Sugar is not fruit. Repeat.

You can do all the experiments you want with sugar but it proves nothing about fruit.

Rob

--
Rob Hull - Funky Raw
My blog: [www.rawrob.com]

Fruit sugar - Ingredients, Substitutions and EquivalentsFruit sugar, fructose (fr&#365;k´tôs) , levulose , or simple sugar found in honey and in the fruit and other parts of plants. It is granulated and looks much ...
www.gourmetsleuth.com/equivalents_substitutions.asp?index=F&tid=2237 - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

Google Answers: Sugar From FruitThe difference between FRUIT sugar (fructose) and refined sugar (sucrose) is as follows. Fruit sugar is something known as FRUCTOSE ...
answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=751591 - 19k - Cached - Similar pages

Cook's Thesaurus: Sugarfructose = granulated fructose = fruit sugar = levulose Pronunciation: FROOK-tose Notes: A teaspoon of granulated fructose has about the same number of ...
www.sonic.net/~alden/Sweeten.html - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

fruit sugar - definition from dictionary.die.netfruit sugar n : a simple sugar found in honey and in many ripe fruits [syn: fructose, levulose, laevulose]
dictionary.die.net/fruit%20sugar - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

fruit sugar - definition of fruit sugar by the Free Online ...Definition of fruit sugar in the Online Dictionary. Meaning of fruit sugar. What does fruit sugar mean? fruit sugar synonyms, fruit sugar antonyms.
www.thefreedictionary.com/fruit+sugar - 30k - Cached - Similar pages

Low Carb/Low Sugar Fruits: A list of the best and the worst fruit ...Low sugar fruits are best for those limiting carbs. Here are lists of the best and the worst fruit for those on low carb diets.
lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/whattoeat/a/whatfruit.htm - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

fruit+sugar - Definition from Merriam-Webster's Medical DictionaryDefinition of fruit+sugar from Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary with examples and pronunciations.
medical.merriam-webster.com/medical/fruit+sugar - 25k - Cached - Similar pages

Sugar In Fruit. Energy In Fruits, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Diet.Natural Sugars In Fruit. Fruit Sugars, Glucose, Fructose, Carboydrates, Proteins, Protein, Calory, Calories, Vitamin, Vitamins, Fiber, Fibers, Health.
www.thefruitpages.com/sugar

FRUIT SUGAR I LOVE SO MUCH. YUMMY. I ALSO LOVE SUGAR AND FAT AS IN DURIAN.

Why is that your average SAD eater can eat a banana in their morning cereal without problems, but there are many of raw foodists who if they eat a banana, have a serious candida outbreak? What is it about the diet of these raw foodists such that a single banana makes them so sick? And from what I've heard, many of these raw foodists were able to eat that same banana before they went raw.

Brian I have not heard that about raw foodists and bananas... Interesting stuff! I have at least two bananas a day and thankfully have not had any problems. Are the Candida outbreaks more likely to happen to those who are newly raw or those who've been raw for awhile?



My website: The Coconut Chronicles

RE: the pet scan example, it does not prove your point. All macronutrients feed cancer and the best way to starve a tumor is to stop giving it calories of any sort.

The brain feeds on glucose. This does not mean that sugar feeds cancer. It measn the brain dies without glucose and a tumor will die without energy, it needs enough of the essential aminos, glucose, and essential fats, and will die if it does not get as much of *all* of these as it needs. In the absence of underlying patholgies and smoking skinny people usually get fewer cancers and live longer. But this is largely independent of their macronutrient ratios and more a function of total calories consumed (except that restricting methionine seems to work pretty well).

I think Brian is going through a phase and he'll snap out of it some day. Soon, hopefully.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2008 07:39PM by arugula.

What a cute photo by the way, so breathtaking the colors and the bond between you two!!!

You have a beautiful body for sure but we are on this forum more for the message

I 2nd to Madinah, this is not a porno site. Go find some clothes!

elnatural

Just past the durian please can't live without fruit.
15% no way very hard to do.

Cherimoya

Love Peace and Happiness,

Below is a response from Doug Graham to a recent Paul Nison newletter where Paul states that addiction to sugar causes illness, including cancer, and that fruit has more sugar than ever before. Paul's comments are in green, Doug Graham's comments are in black, and some other person's (N.D.) comments are in maroon.

---

From: Dr. Doug Graham (DrGraham.vegsource.com)
Subject: Long. I discuss this in 811, but here is another slant
Date: February 7, 2008 at 2:05 pm PST
In Reply to: Dr.D., Can too much fruit cause cancer? posted by GC on February 6, 2008 at 2:32 pm:

The following commentary is real. I am hoping that people will read it with an open mind, and decide for themselves what value, if any, is to be found in it.

In health abundance naturally,

Dr Douglas N. Graham

Hi Doug,
I hope you are doing well. I just ran across this (please see below) and thought it might be of interest to you. I'm sure you're used to this type of controversy in the raw food community - this is the first time I saw it in writing. I hear this opinion among other raw fooders.

For my own edification, I'd be curious to hear from you how this thinking is refuted with sound biological/biochemical/scientific fact-based evidence vs. just disagreeing and making broad general statements. He says people come down with the same cancers and other diseases after eating so much fruit over the years - but my suspicion is that may only be true if people routinely have too much fat in their diet combined with the fruit, and he doesn't seem to make a distinction between types of sugars.

I've read 80/10/10 as well as many of your other works, and the works of many other raw fooders. The only philosophy that has made sense to me over the years is the basis of The 80/10/10 Diet. While I have personally not achieved that ratio yet on a consistent basis, I definitely strive to move "in the direction toward" that goal. To the extent that I do, I notice an overall positive improvement in my physical health and well-being. When I'm "off" - I notice the negative consequences of that, too - at times pretty acutely.

Thanks,
N.D.


This Week's Q&A with Paul Nison
(Please e-mail any questions you have to paul@Rawlife.com)
(We will do our best to reply to all questions in a timely manner.)

Question
I was reading through a book from Douglas N. Graham and he really supports the idea of eating a lot of fruit. He says that as long as you also have greens and water you can eat as much fruit as you want. I am a little confused here. I don't want to be a fruitarian, but, I do believe that fruit is good for you and it should be in your diet. I think a balance should be struck here. Dr. Graham has a new book out supporting his 80/10/10 plan. I'm sure you have heard of it. Do you have an opinion on this? I'm thinking you might tell me that I would have too much sugar in my diet if I would follow this plan. Please help me in figuring this out.

Answer
Hippocrates Health Institute did many studies on consuming too much sweet fruit and confirms that sugar supports cancer and other diseases in the body. A very active ,healthy person can get away with eating a lot of fruit for a certain amount of time, but they are asking for trouble in the future. Dr. Gabriel Cousens also confirms in his book "Rainbow Green Live Food Cuisine" that too much fruit does more harm than good. Fruit today has much more sugar than ever before, and because of this it's more than the body can handle. Addiction to sugar has become a big cause of many illnesses. From all my research, I found the Hippocrates Health Institute way of eating, mostly greens, a little amount of raw fats from a vegan plant based source and non-sweet fruits, is the ideal diet for everyone.

Anything with a seed is a fruit, so non-sweet fruit would be cucumbers, red peppers, etc.. I have seen many people thrive on a high, sweet-fruit diet for the first few years but after that got the same sicknesses as people eating a high processed sugar diet. Fruit is a great food but eating too much can cause serious issues, and my opinion is 80% sweet fruits is way too much sugar. Of course there are other things to consider like, how much a person is eating, how active a person is and what point they are starting from with their health. Dr. Graham seems to do fine on this diet, but I have never met anyone as active as he is. Even so, being more active so you can eat more fruit is not a wise idea. The real issue is overeating more than anything. Most people can enjoy a few pieces of fruit each day (except people with cancer or other sugar related issues) and be fine. But we have to be sensible out how much we eat and control our sugar intake.


DG: The following comments are not meant as attack. I do not wish them to be construed as such in any way. I was asked to respond with facts and science, and have done so. The response may not be what you wish to read. I have never told anyone what to think, but I do encourage every person to think for him/herself. Hopefully my responses will be thought provoking, informative, and possibly definitive.

I have responded line by line to PNs comments, in an effort to be as clear and concise as possible.

PN: Hippocrates Health Institute did many studies on consuming too much sweet fruit and confirms that sugar supports cancer and other diseases in the body.

DG: To my knowledge, HHI has never done even one true study. They have analyzed the results of some of their clients, and drawn conclusions. No actual studies were ever performed, no valid science was utilized, no blind or double blind research was created, evaluated, or even considered.

HHI never intentionally gave any client "too much" sweet fruit in order to see what would happen, or ever utilized the low-fat approach when utilizing moderate quantities of fruit.
While I agree that "too much" sweet fruit is bad for anyone, "too much" of anything is bad for anyone. "Too much" inherently implies a problem. I am not recommending "too much" fruit, but rather suggesting that most people do not eat enough fresh fruit.

Sugar does not "support" cancer. This “fact” has never been shown ever, anywhere, by anyone. What has been shown is that cancer cells, like all cells, fuel themselves with sugar. But then, all people have roughly the same blood sugar levels, regardless of the diet they eat, except for people who eat high levels of fat. These people tend to have higher than normal blood sugar levels, thus providing excess fuel for cancer cells. Blood supplies sugar to all cells of the body. There is no way to stay alive without blood sugar. Therefore, it is impossible to "starve" the cancer cells without also starving all other cells of the body, including vital cells such as brain and liver cells. We would have to kill ourselves In order to starve cancer cells of sugar. Blood sugar does not come solely from eating sugar. In order to regulate and stabilize blood sugar levels at all times, if we do not eat sufficiently of carbohydrates, the body will manufacture sugar from the protein and fat we consume.

"other diseases." It is not possible for me to comment on this phrase, as I have no idea what other diseases PN is referring to.


PN: A very active, healthy person can get away with eating a lot of fruit for a certain amount of time, but they are asking for trouble in the future.

DG: "Get away with?" What does that mean? If it is taking them down a precipitous road, then they are not "getting away" with anything. I have been following this program in excess of 20 years. When is the future going to take me down, what trouble am I asking for, how far down the road is this predicted trouble, why haven't I heard about it, why are Pritikin, McDougall, Ornish, Esselstyn, Campbell, and the others unaware of it, how did PN get privy to such info, and what qualifications does he have to make such a sweeping statement?

PN: Dr. Gabriel Cousens also confirms in his book “Rainbow Green Live Food Cuisine” that too much fruit does more harm than good.

DG: Ah, one source. An MD, says that "too much fruit does more harm than good." I agree. "Too much" of anything does more harm than good. And how, exactly, do we quantify harm and good? How do we quantify "too much?” On my CD, "How much fruit is too much?" I explain in depth exactly how to measure and monitor “too much,” and respond to most of the unfounded fears that people express about fruit eating.

PN: Fruit today has much more sugar than ever before, and because of this it’s more than the body can handle.

DG: Which fruit can you name that has "much more sugar" than ever before? I find that most fruit today isn't as sweet as the fruit I remember from my childhood. I find that when I go to places in the world where fruit is produced that it invariably tastes sweeter than the stuff I buy in the markets in most of the US. Are Delicious apples sweeter than they were 50 years ago? Are Cavendish bananas sweeter than they were 50 years ago? Navel oranges? Bing cherries? Is that what PN is saying? Currently, I can find no evidence that fruit is sweeter than it used to be. I do know that a few new varieties of fruits have come on to the market, that are noticeably sweeter than their predecessors. Grapefruit is the main example, though there are at least 4 or 5 others. I have heard leaders in the raw movement state that bananas are 50 times sweeter today than they used to be. Let's do the math.

Assume the only food you could find in nature was bananas, and assume you are a moderately active man, requiring 3000 calories per day. At 100 calories per large banana, you would have to eat 30 bananas per day, if that was the only food you ate.

It is possible to eat 30 bananas per day, though admittedly some people would find it daunting, at least at first. In a survival situation, however, we could all learn to eat that many, if that was what was needed to meet our calorie requirement. A petite woman might only require 2000 calories per day, or 20 bananas. Now, if bananas are 50 times sweeter today, and since their primary calorie source is carbohydrate, it would mean that bananas of the past only supplied 2 calories each, barring the 4 calories that would come from protein, and the fraction of a calorie that would come from fat. At six calories per banana, (2 from carbohydrates and 4 from protein) In order to meet her calorie need, that petite woman would have to eat roughly 333 bananas per day to meet her calorie needs. The man would need to eat 500 bananas per day. Do you still believe that bananas are 50 times sweeter than they used to be?

If so, please also consider the ramifications of the nutritional content of the fruit that is being implied. A piece of fruit with .5 grams of carbohydrate, 1 gram of protein, and a negligible quantity of fat would provide 66% of its total calorie content from protein! Now that would be a truly amazing food. I mean, we are talking about a fruit that has more protein per calorie than meat, pork, fish, eggs, and almost every cut of poultry. To think that there are raw food leaders that state that ALL FRUIT used to be this rich in protein is astonishing to me. Do you ever wonder why no one else in the entire world seems aware of this monumental historic fact?

PN: Addiction to sugar has become a big cause of many illnesses.

DG: Although the above statement sounds reasonable, it is flawed in a variety of ways. Addiction to sugar is its own problem, if such a thing exists. Sugar consumption is natural and normal for humans, as is breathing air. Are we addicted to breathing air?

What is sugar addiction, I wonder? What type of sugar is PN speaking of? Does type of sugar matter? Is he talking about carbohydrate addiction, and if so, is he including alcohol addiction? Do he distinguish between complex and simple carbohydrates, or between refined and whole carbohydrates? What specific illnesses is PN referring to? Is there a reason he is being so vague? Is he referring to a physical addiction, or a psychological one? There is profound scientific evidence to show that it is physiologically impossible to become physically addicted to anything, and that all addiction is psychological. At that point, it isn’t the substance, but the susceptibility of the person that is relevant.

There certainly is sugar in the non-sweet fruits PN recommends, and also in the greens he recommends. Are those sugars not part of the same problem that he mentions, “addiction to sugar,” and if not, how and why are they different from the sugars in fruit? Does it matter whether the sugars PN refers to are incorporated into whole foods, or if they are refined in some way, such as the sugars in the refined supplements PN sells?

PN: From all my research, I found the Hippocrates Health Institute way of eating, mostly greens, a little amount of raw fats from a vegan plant based source and non-sweet fruits, is the ideal diet for everyone.

DG: “From all my research” is a phrase commonly used in the raw movement. What does it really mean, do you think, and is it the same thing as what it implies?

Dictionary definitions of the word include:
diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications, etc.

And:
Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry.

Is PN actually asking us to believe that he engaged in “diligent, systematic, scientific investigation?”

It's funny really. On one hand, PN has repeatedly insisted over the years that there is no "one way" that is correct for everyone. On the other, he now declares the HHI method is "ideal for everyone."

Yet PN has obviously misrepresented the viability of the HHI diet. HHI uses a great many supplements in their program. In fact the director of HHI has publicly declared that their raw food diet is "nutritionally inadequate," and that "supplementation is necessary."

The HHI diet provides calories from three sources: "mostly greens, a little amount of raw fats from a vegan plant based source and non-sweet fruits." The non-sweet fruits provide roughly 20-25 calories per average-sized unit. The greens provide roughly 75 calories per pound.

A voracious eater with a large appetite might be able to eat 10 tomatoes, 10 peppers, and 10 cucumbers in a day, and also 2-3 pounds of greens, but I would imagine that that would represent a daunting task. Even so, all of that food would only add up to 750- 975 calories. Where does the petite woman get her other 1250 calories, and where does the man get his other 2000 calories, if not from fruit? From fat, obviously. This means that their diet is roughly 65-70% of calories from fat, exactly as I described it in The 80/10/10 Diet. I would hardly call a diet that is 65-70% fat by calorie to be, “a little amount of raw fats."

Essentially, this diet thumbs its nose at the world's most successful and most respected health scientists, and recommends a diet that uses 50% more fat than the Standard Western Diet, and in the process, btw, roughly double to triple the quantity of salt.


PN: Anything with a seed is a fruit, so non-sweet fruit would be cucumbers, red peppers, etc..

DG: Here are a few dictionary definitions of "fruit," none of which seem to agree with PN's definition that "Anything with a seed is a fruit."
2. the developed ovary of a seed plant with its contents and accessory parts, as the pea pod, nut, tomato, or pineapple.
3. the edible part of a plant developed from a flower, with any accessory tissues, as the peach, mulberry, or banana.
4. the spores and accessory organs of ferns, mosses, fungi, algae, or lichen.

The American Heritage Science Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
fruit (frt) Pronunciation Key
The ripened ovary of a flowering plant that contains the seeds, sometimes fused with other parts of the plant.
Fruits can be dry or fleshy. Berries, nuts, grains, pods, and drupes are fruits.
* Fruits that consist of ripened ovaries alone, such as the tomato and pea pod, are called true fruits.
* Fruits that consist of ripened ovaries and other parts such as the receptacle or bracts, as in the apple, are called accessory fruits or false fruits.

See also aggregate fruit, multiple fruit, simple fruit., See Note at berry.

Our Living Language : To most of us, a fruit is a plant part that is eaten as a dessert or snack because it is sweet, but to a botanist a fruit is a mature ovary of a plant, and as such it may or may not taste sweet.

All species of flowering plants produce fruits that contain seeds. A peach, for example, contains a pit that can grow into a new peach tree, while the seeds known as peas can grow into another pea vine. To a botanist, apples, peaches, peppers, tomatoes, pea pods, cucumbers, and winged maple seeds are all fruits.

A vegetable is simply part of a plant that is grown primarily for food. Thus, the leaf of spinach, the root of a carrot, the flower of broccoli, and the stalk of celery are all vegetables.
In everyday, nonscientific speech we make the distinction between sweet plant parts (fruits) and nonsweet plant parts (vegetables). This is why we speak of peppers and cucumbers and squash—all fruits in the eyes of a botanist—as vegetables.

I have always made the distinction between botanical and culinary definitions, in an effort to maintain clarity in my writing. If we wish to call "anything with a seed" a fruit, then almost all plants would technically be fruits. I believe, as educators, we can be a bit more precise.


PN: I have seen many people thrive on a high, sweet-fruit diet for the first few years but after that got the same sicknesses as people eating a high processed sugar diet.

DG: Health is about so much more than diet. A smoker, for instance, will likely develop emphysema regardless of the diet s/he follows. The irksome thing is that my VegSource.com board has been in existence for almost a decade now, with many people on it following 811 for almost that long, and they have yet to show, "the same sicknesses as people eating a high processed sugar diet." I wonder how long it takes before my health decline will begin? To point to diet when lifestyle is so obviously a major factor in health represents poor logic, at best.

PN: Fruit is a great food but eating too much can cause serious issues, and my opinion is 80% sweet fruits is way too much sugar.

DG: Obviously, this is a reference to The 80/10/10 Diet, and one which clearly shows PN's lack of understanding of the concepts involved in that program, and the likelihood that he has not read the book. Since the world's authorities are in agreement that 10% of protein by calorie is more than sufficient, and 10% of fat by calorie is more than sufficient, I wonder how PN can come to any conclusion other than to recommend 80% of the diet, by calorie, be sourced from carbohydrates?

The funny part about it is that any time we eat fruit that is sweeter, we invariably eat less of it. Sugar is satiating, a fact we all learned as children, when our mothers would say to us, “don’t eat sweets before your meal, it will spoil your appetite.” This means that humans have a natural, built-in ability to regulate their sugar intake in order to meet and accommodate their needs, as recognized by the “sweet tooth.” We have no such ability to regulate our fat intake, however, as demonstrated by people’s inability to maintain a healthy weight when they incorporate a diet that is high in fat.

PN: Of course there are other things to consider like, how much a person is eating, how active a person is and what point they are starting from with their health. Dr. Graham seems to do fine on this diet, but I have never met anyone as active as he is.r,

DG: There are two models in health care; the medical model and the health model. The medical model suggests that conditions for health, when one is healthy, are different than those required for health when one is attempting to regain health. Therefore, according to the medical model approach, healthy children should drink milk because it is good for them, but sick kids should avoid milk because it will congest them. Drugs will make a healthy person sick, but make a sick person well, or at least that is the system utilized by the medical model. PN is relying upon your acceptance of the medical model when suggesting that our caloronutrient ratio should vary depending upon our health and activity levels.

The health model asserts that the conditions required for health when healthy and those required to regain health from sickness are identical, and need only be modified to meet the needs of each individual at any given time. Hence, we all need sunshine, fresh air, exercise, sleep, etc, but in varying amounts at different times of life. Had PN utilized this logical and proven health model, he would see that the only variation required among adults is the total calorie intake, and not caloronutrient ratio.

Regarding my personal fitness level, on average throughout the year, I am lucky to get in one hour of physical activity per day. Certainly this is not a prodigious amount of exercise. I have a sedentary job, spend more time in the kitchen than in the gym each day, and love spending time with my family. I do stay active, and on a regular basis, but it is a small part of each day.

If PN has never met anyone as active as myself, he must live in a very secluded world. I personally have met countless thousands of people who are far more active than myself. Today, instead of getting any physical activity at all, for instance, I have chosen to write this response.

PN: Even so, being more active so you can eat more fruit is not a wise idea.

DG: I certainly am not more active in order to eat more fruit, nor have I ever recommended such an approach, but I do find that being active leaves me with a greater overall calorie requirement than if I was sedentary. Because I cannot obtain those calories from greens and non-sweet fruity vegetables, and because I choose not to obtain those calories from fat or complex carbohydrates, fruit becomes the obvious and only healthy choice. Of course, eating more total calories means that I take in more nutrients in total than a person who eats fewer calories. In theory, consuming more total calories in the form of whole fruits and vegetables, hence more total nutrients, is a good thing in terms of overall nutrition.

PN: The real issue is overeating more than anything.

DG: Let’s look at the original question again, and then read the above response. “I was reading through a book from Douglas N. Graham and he really supports the idea of eating a lot of fruit. He says that as long as you also have greens and water you can eat as much fruit as you want. I am a little confused here. I don't want to be a fruitarian, but, I do believe that fruit is good for you and it should be in your diet. I think a balance should be struck here. Dr. Graham has a new book out supporting his 80/10/10 plan. I'm sure you have heard of it. Do you have an opinion on this?”

Is the real issue, as PN suggest, “overeating more than anything”? Or is switching the subject to a completely different topic than the questioner wrote about simply an avoidance tactic? I see nowhere in the question anything about over-eating, do you? In fact, I believe the question either asks if PN has an opinion of The 80/10/10 Diet, or if he has an opinion about eating a diet of fruits, vegetables and water. How did the real issue become over- eating?

My weight has remained stable for the past 20+ years. I do not believe I am over-eating, nor do I believe I am recommending that anyone over-eat. I never eat till I hurt, and I never hurt myself with my food choices. What type of over-eating is PN referring to? I am not aware of there being any over-eating in The 80/10/10 Diet, or any recommendations to do so.


PN: Most people can enjoy a few pieces of fruit each day (except people with cancer or other sugar related issues) and be fine.

DG: The American Cancer Society recommends that people with cancer eat all the fruit they care for, as does the American Diabetes Association and the American Heart Association. I don’t know what other sugar-related conditions PN might be referring to. The National Candida Society does not seem to make specific dietary recommendations, but exists solely to refer clients to treating professionals. Certainly, had PN read The 80/10/10 Diet, he would know that I took the time to address each and every issue and opposition to fruit-eating, one at a time, in depth. I wonder what information PN has access to that these esteemed organizations and the hundreds of thousands of doctors, scientists, and researchers that support them don't have that enables him to make such sweeping diagnostic and prognostic statements

PN: But we have to be sensible out how much we eat and control our sugar intake.

DG: What is sensible about a diet that is 65+% fat by calorie? What is sensible about a diet that admittedly requires supplementation in order to be considered nutritionally sound? What is sensible about a diet that intentionally restricts fruit consumption, on of the only foods that is universally considered a health food? What is sensible about a dietary approach that excludes fitness?

I agree, we should be sensible about how much we eat. Maintaining a healthy body weight, and a healthy level of body fat, are prime requisites to healthy living. As mentioned previously, my weight has remained stable, essentially unchanged, over the past 20+ years. Has PN maintained his weight over the last decade, or has he steadily gained weight? The director of HHI told me not long ago that he has gained over 50 pounds during the last decade from the 135-pounds that he had maintained for the decade prior.

Why should we "control" our sugar intake, but not our fat intake? We have an innate desire to eat sweets, but no ability to even taste fat. We have built-in blood-sugar monitoring systems in our body that make it almost impossible for us to over-eat on sugar. No such mechanisms are available to help us regulate or monitor our fat intake.

I wonder, would PN recommend that chimpanzees “control” their sugar intake?


Hope this helps,

Dr D

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2008 12:20AM by Bryan.

I've seen Paul post here before, be nice if he responded now - but I doubt it :O)

Good post, very thought provoking. Thanks for posting it.

I loved some of the Graham comments, because I've experienced the same concerns from the overweight/obese/diabetic/fibromyalgia types I work with regarding my fruit intake and "but you're so active" comments as well. I rarely do even an hour of exercise these days (30-45 minutes is more like it) and I've maintained the same weight for 31 years now and I hear these PN questions all the time. They don't bug me about my veganism but they do bug me about the fruit and the raw.

Good for Dr. Graham, he is right, we don't need more than 10% protein or fat. What's left is either sugar or starch.

Excellent thread, thank you all