• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

The Healthiest Diet, Without question


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#1 Erok

  • Guest
  • 25 posts
  • 0

Posted 26 January 2009 - 02:24 AM


Hi, I haven't posted much on this forum but have read quite a bit and have done much studying on my own, and have college degrees, all that.
I also have personal experience with many different lifestyles, regimens, all of that too, so many variations, but enough time in each to really "feel" it.

From what I have found, the healthiest diet, and the one we are anatomically and physiologically designed for, is a diet composed of lots of RAW fresh, whole, ripe organic fruit, and tender leafy greens, and veggie-fruits included here (and celery), with the occasional fatty fruit and some seeds, or nuts. The calonutrient ratio of at least 80% calories from carbohydrates, 10% or less from protein, and 10% or less from fat.

If you want to read some of the science behind this, check out
The 80-10-10 Diet by Dr. Douglas Graham

http://foodnsport.com/shop.html

Also check out:

Green for Life

And other books on low-fat raw veganism.

Basically, exercise, sunshine, adequate rest, emotional and mental poise, and avoiding toxic lifestyle in all aspects are crucial here.

Meat, dairy, grains, and certain hard to digest vegetables (many containing toxins) are not designed for us, and are very harmful.

Think of what you would consume in it's natural state, without all of the modifcation, spicing, cooking, disguising of your foods.

Dr. Graham makes a great arguement, backed up scientifically with studies and references, and shows how we can meet all of our needs for EFA's, vitamins, minerals, protein, and all by this diet, uses comparitve anatomy, biochemistry, and dispels many of the myths about fruit cosumption.

I personally have felt best on this diet and have seem health conditions improve, I also know several who have cured themselves of cancer and chronic debilitating disease, and who have seen scars and other growths dissapear.

I could share many other things, but this is the most important. Basically I have also found that most supplements are bunk and not needed when the diet is proper, thousands of co-factors and phytonutrients exist we have not discovered and don't even know what to look for, nature has them all packaged together in perfect form. Any extraction, isolation, refinement, is inferior at best, and possibly harmful (as with the beta carotene that prevents uptake of other carotenes. There is also a "vibration", a living life force, measureable in some ways, not in othes, to living foods. Also, the B12 colonies in our gut re-establish themselves when we quit eating things that harm them, including garlic, onions, ginger, turmeric, cayenne, and all the meat,dairy, grain, alcohol, etc. Fruit has pre-biotics, or FOS, particularly bananas. We are starving ourselves on other diets, truth be told. No other diet has as much vitamins or minerals. Most on this diet eat 1-2lbs of greens a day (4-6% of calories from greens).

Not to mention, this is the best diet for the planet, and for our animal friends, NO animal cruelty. Would you go up to a cow and eat it it as is? A chicken? Would you suck on an animals teet? Not natural. Give a baby a banana and a rabbit, does it play with the banana and eat the rabbit!? No! Also, burning wood and fuel for cooking food (denatures proteins, creates carcinogens, alters the chemistry of the food, destroys vitamins and minerals). Grains are acid forming and have high levels of phosphorous and contain minimum of 8 opiod sequences. Meat is one of the worst foods we can eat for many reasons. And yes, we are tropical creatues meant to eat lots of fruit, we have artificially adapted to our environments but our bodies have not adapted to the foods. Mother nature had the design right, perverting it perverts our health.

Ok, that's enough for now, enjoy. :)

In Love, Peace and Health

Ebhak
  • Disagree x 2
  • Agree x 1

#2 Sillewater

  • Guest
  • 1,076 posts
  • 280
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 26 January 2009 - 07:31 AM

Hi, I haven't posted much on this forum but have read quite a bit and have done much studying on my own, and have college degrees, all that.
I also have personal experience with many different lifestyles, regimens, all of that too, so many variations, but enough time in each to really "feel" it.

From what I have found, the healthiest diet, and the one we are anatomically and physiologically designed for, is a diet composed of lots of RAW fresh, whole, ripe organic fruit, and tender leafy greens, and veggie-fruits included here (and celery), with the occasional fatty fruit and some seeds, or nuts. The calonutrient ratio of at least 80% calories from carbohydrates, 10% or less from protein, and 10% or less from fat.

If you want to read some of the science behind this, check out
The 80-10-10 Diet by Dr. Douglas Graham

http://foodnsport.com/shop.html

Also check out:

Green for Life

And other books on low-fat raw veganism.

Basically, exercise, sunshine, adequate rest, emotional and mental poise, and avoiding toxic lifestyle in all aspects are crucial here.

Meat, dairy, grains, and certain hard to digest vegetables (many containing toxins) are not designed for us, and are very harmful.

Think of what you would consume in it's natural state, without all of the modifcation, spicing, cooking, disguising of your foods.

Dr. Graham makes a great arguement, backed up scientifically with studies and references, and shows how we can meet all of our needs for EFA's, vitamins, minerals, protein, and all by this diet, uses comparitve anatomy, biochemistry, and dispels many of the myths about fruit cosumption.

I personally have felt best on this diet and have seem health conditions improve, I also know several who have cured themselves of cancer and chronic debilitating disease, and who have seen scars and other growths dissapear.

I could share many other things, but this is the most important. Basically I have also found that most supplements are bunk and not needed when the diet is proper, thousands of co-factors and phytonutrients exist we have not discovered and don't even know what to look for, nature has them all packaged together in perfect form. Any extraction, isolation, refinement, is inferior at best, and possibly harmful (as with the beta carotene that prevents uptake of other carotenes. There is also a "vibration", a living life force, measureable in some ways, not in othes, to living foods. Also, the B12 colonies in our gut re-establish themselves when we quit eating things that harm them, including garlic, onions, ginger, turmeric, cayenne, and all the meat,dairy, grain, alcohol, etc. Fruit has pre-biotics, or FOS, particularly bananas. We are starving ourselves on other diets, truth be told. No other diet has as much vitamins or minerals. Most on this diet eat 1-2lbs of greens a day (4-6% of calories from greens).

Not to mention, this is the best diet for the planet, and for our animal friends, NO animal cruelty. Would you go up to a cow and eat it it as is? A chicken? Would you suck on an animals teet? Not natural. Give a baby a banana and a rabbit, does it play with the banana and eat the rabbit!? No! Also, burning wood and fuel for cooking food (denatures proteins, creates carcinogens, alters the chemistry of the food, destroys vitamins and minerals). Grains are acid forming and have high levels of phosphorous and contain minimum of 8 opiod sequences. Meat is one of the worst foods we can eat for many reasons. And yes, we are tropical creatues meant to eat lots of fruit, we have artificially adapted to our environments but our bodies have not adapted to the foods. Mother nature had the design right, perverting it perverts our health.

Ok, that's enough for now, enjoy. :)

In Love, Peace and Health

Ebhak


No offense but I ain't even going to discuss this diet or the "vibration" of life stuff.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 26 January 2009 - 07:42 AM

the B12 colonies in our gut


thats a very interesting way to look at that

#4 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 26 January 2009 - 04:40 PM

"Meat, dairy, grains, and certain hard to digest vegetables (many containing toxins) are not designed for us, and are very harmful."

Ah, so this is the Intelligent Food Design theory.

#5 spaceistheplace

  • Guest
  • 397 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Sacramento

Posted 26 January 2009 - 07:36 PM

woah man you're blowing my mind

Posted Image

#6 HaloTeK

  • Guest
  • 254 posts
  • 7
  • Location:chicago

Posted 27 January 2009 - 12:02 AM

Could I see pictures of people who follow this diet to prove to me that they look healthy? Hell, onions (besides bad breath) are one of the best foods on the planet. I feel this may be a prescription for sarcopenia.

Edited by HaloTeK, 27 January 2009 - 12:06 AM.


#7 Erok

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 25 posts
  • 0

Posted 27 January 2009 - 06:11 AM

Hi<

Please, I did intend this as a serious discussion, I made some lighthearted inclusions that may deviate from empirical modern science, but are part of ancient or more mystical empirical sciences I have studied seperatately from modern empirical science. I should not mix the two here I suppose, to keep things understandable and creditable with you all.

Sillewater, if you do not consider something due to one such statment I included that you do not agree with, by all means, argue for your close-mindedness to the rest of what I said here, and it is yours. If you have some feedback about the diet, as with anyone, I will read your responses. I think you should still check out the rest of it, and look past one comment I made that is not part of the authors opinion that I cited.

ajnast4r - I have read your posts in the past before, and believe you would be one who already approaches this diet, and thus may not be thrown off enough to actually read the science behind it.

I could show you people on this diet, check out that site though if you wish, foodnsport, or forums like 30bananasaday.com to see some healthy vibrant looking individuals!

JLL - That is funny! I did phrase that in a way that allowed for such a comment :) No, what I mean is using compartive anatomy, and I know we have a wide range of opinions here as far as philosophical, evolutionary, spiritual, theories, but I get hthe feeling many here may believe in evolution or at least see some hints from the genetic and anatomical similarities between us and certain primates. Now, the one book I mentioned goes into much more detail, and it is late but I do want to share here, and keep it a bit more serious then the last few posters. Sure you can make hippy jokes :D , I don't define myself or label myself, surely I have gone through evolutions in several aspects during my life, and at one time you would of been more accurate.

Here is one part of what I would bring up, as far as the carnivore vs plant eater argumenet.

Animals who care carnivores have the following in common: (and the reverse is true for us, frugivores by nature)

4 feet and use all fours for locomotion.
Have rasping tounges.
Have claws.
DO not have opposable thumbs.
Typically Give birth to litters.
Have smooth colons.
Have short colons that allow for short transit time.
Have multiple teats.
Sleep 18-20 hours.
Can digest deadly (to us) microbes.
Sweat from the tounges.
Do not see in full color.
Eat the entire animal when they kill it.
Lap water with their tounge.
Have zonary placentas.
Can manafacture vitamin C.
Do not have lateral jaw movement.
Have a 3/1/5to8 dental formula.
Have many sharp teeth.
Can handle high fat diets.
Have acidic saliva and urine pH.
Thrive on acid forming foods.
Have a pH of 1 or so in stomach acid.
Have completely different enzymes then us.
Do not thrive and get sick on diets high in fruit.
Have a different ratio of intestinal bacteria then plant eaters colons.
Have larger livers proportionally.
We are particular about the cleaniless of our food, carnivores eat dirt, bugs, organic debris.
We can eat fruit and greens and some veggies raw/fresh, but carnivores, when they see the sight of prey, their mouthes water, they react to the smell of animals, they eat bone, blood, guts, and the whole animal.
Carnivores can deal with animal fat, we deposit it in our arteries.

There are maybe 10 different arguments or reasonings RATHER I can list here when I have more time.

Grains, dairy, meat, are acid forming and mucous forming. This is based upon their mineral composition and effects in the body. Sorry for not including references here, if you would all really like, or like a better place to read up, maybe check out Dr. Dough Graham, or for started, Ross Horne - Improving on Pritkin. The China study, etc.

We are more incidental eats of nuts/fats, as too much fat blocks the insulin receptors and transport, and traps sugar in our bloodstream.
We also can't break down tough fibrous veggies like roots and tubers, crucierferous vegetables and leaves, and cereals/grassses, and naturally with our senses, would be able to distinguish many kinds of fruit and green leaves, pick it with out hands, distinguish ripeness, use our lips and tounge to manipulate fruit and seeds and all.



So from the perspective of all the studies you have read here, where do they agree, where is the discrepancy from what study that you would be weary of? This method of eating includes the most vitamins, minerals, and co-factors, in a package that is a natural ratio and in a natural form. There are many aspects we lose when deriving a single discovered nutrient, or set of them, as I described in the first post.

I know some of you follow that one insulin study, that says insulin = aging, I would look more into that, but I find flaws already, surely eating any other diet would lead to a much sooner death due to the reasons listed above, many other kinds of disease, I can add more later.

Anyways, please add something substantial or serious, not dismissive and hostile posts, that is not becoming of people truly interested in health and longevitiy.

Edited by Ebhak, 27 January 2009 - 06:13 AM.


#8 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,010 posts
  • -2
  • Location:South East

Posted 27 January 2009 - 06:43 AM

Can I ask what kind college degrees you have?

#9 Erok

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 25 posts
  • 0

Posted 27 January 2009 - 07:33 AM

I popped back on for a moment, read some other parts of this forum, have some catching up to do I've been traveling the wold.
Ok, so I'd like to keep this on topic, but since you asked, B.S in Biology, Chemistry, Physics, worked at one point on cryo-therapies, neuroscience, and later on studied nutrition and such. Was a computer programmer for a while. I also worked at a prominent medical school as a researcher. I haven't gone further in my degrees yet, so many interesting fields, you know. I took some time off from school recently.

Perhaps I shold of not used such a brazen title, for surely one should question, I just am enthusiastic about the support I keep finding for this the more I study it and the more people I see thriving and reversing disease and signs of aging. Yes, I have met people, that is anecdotal, unfortunately there aren't studies done on people eating like this yet, the closest we can get are some of the longest living cultures, which have a similar calonutrient ratio but some of them used grains as their carbohydrate source which comes with a whole host of problems that fruit does not, and it lacks elements such as the phytonutrients and soluble fiber.

Really though I don't have time right now and am just popping in, but come on, some serious discussion? What more should I add here, some links to some articles or something?

Edited by Erok, 27 January 2009 - 07:35 AM.


#10 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 27 January 2009 - 08:56 AM

i actually agree with a good portion of what you said, especially your comments on vegetarianism (ive been a strict vegetarian for 10 years), although my education doesnt allow me to believe 80-10-10 is optimal.. especially for anyone who is active. im sure you could survive quite well on it for a while though. i may pick up the book to read after this semester is over, it looks interesting...

i still find your "the B12 colonies in our gut re-establish themselves when we quit eating things that harm them" statement to be prolific...


ide be really interested to see what you eat, especially what your main source of carbohydrate is being that your diet is 80% cho and you dont eat grains or tubers. could you list some of the foods you consume on a regular basis?

Edited by ajnast4r, 27 January 2009 - 09:08 AM.


#11 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 27 January 2009 - 09:27 AM

The plant eater argument doesn't really hold water. There are no hunter-gatherers that are true vegetarians, and based on fossil records, there never were. Not even apes are 100% vegetarians.

[S]tone tools and fossil bones--the latter commonly displaying distinctive cut-marks produced when a carcass is dismembered and stripped of edible flesh with a sharp-edged stone flake--are found together on many Plio-Pleistocene archaeological sites, convincing proof that by at least 2.0 to 2.5 Ma [million years ago] before present (BP) these early hominids did in fact eat meat (Bunn 1986; Isaac and Crader 1981). In contrast, plant remains are absent or exceedingly rare on these ancient sites and their role in early hominid diet, therefore, can only be guessed on the basis of their known importance in contemporary forager diets, as well as their potential availability in Plio-Pleistocene environments (for example, see Peters et al. (1984); Sept (1984). Thus few today doubt that early hominids ate meat, and most would agree that they probably consumed far more meat than did their primate forebears. Instead, most studies nowadays focus primarily on how that meat was procured; that is, whether early hominids actively hunted animals, particularly large-bodied prey, or scavenged carcasses...

I fully concur with the view that meat was a regular and important component of early hominid diet. For this, the archaeological and taphonomic evidence is compelling.


No fruitarian, or even vegan, hunter-gatherer societies have ever been found. Further, there is no evidence to indicate there ever existed, in the past, a fruitarian (or veg*n) hunter-gatherer society. Even in the tropical rainforest, hunter-gatherers eat meat. (The Ache of Paraguay in the Amazon rainforest, one of the best-studied of all hunter-gatherer tribes, are a prime example with an average of over 50% meat consumption throughout the year, ranging from 47-77% depending on the season [Hill, Hawkes, Hurtado, and Kaplan 1984].) There is no evidence of any fruitarian societies, and--more to the point--the extensive anecdotal evidence (virtually the only evidence available) on modern attempts at (strict) fruitarianism indicates that it may work for a short while but almost always fails in the long run. (Even the fruitarian extremist "experts" often fail to follow the diet strictly, in the long term.)


http://www.beyondveg...p-anat-1a.shtml

And here's a good comparison of human and animal guts:

http://www.beyondveg...p-anat-6c.shtml

#12 Erok

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 25 posts
  • 0

Posted 27 January 2009 - 06:28 PM

So your sold on the paleo-diet?

If I am going to have go through and debunk / rebut all of the pro-meat and anti-veg sutff at beyondveg (a paleo site) then it will take me a bit, or I can link to some things, but I will with time, I have alot going on right now, but those sold on meat eating usually have quite the defense and almost a primal (or paleolithic) desire to do so. :p

In any case, it seems like some senior members here are pushing paleo, when I recall coming here before and more were into vegeterianism.

I will add more later, but not, I do not agree and with your quote on that persons opinion on fossil evidence or comparitve anatomy.

We often ate things out of necessity, or incidentally, when our natural diet was not around, I mean look at what people have adapted to now, but not the physiology, not enough time has passed.

#13 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 January 2009 - 07:23 PM

If you want to convince people not to eat meat, a good goal for both health and ethical reasons, I respectfully advise you not to use pseudo-scientific nonsense like "vibrations." Seeing as you are a raw foodist too, it seems as if much of your reasoning is one big Appeal to Nature fallacy. Cooking foods can have benefits, and no serious scientist would argue that there is anything inherently good about raw food. Finally, spices are awesome. Eat them every day. Garlic, Oregano, Cinnamon, Basil.... they all have proven health benefits and taste great. Oh, and they're "natural"

#14 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 27 January 2009 - 08:39 PM

Could I see pictures of people who follow this diet to prove to me that they look healthy? Hell, onions (besides bad breath) are one of the best foods on the planet. I feel this may be a prescription for sarcopenia.


They're raw foodists and you can see a lot of them on youtube. Actually, a lot of them I've seen look quite healthy. Type in raw food or something.

Lori


Valya Boutenko 1 (skip to 4:20)


Skinnybitch and runningraw guy


Jennifer raw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M90pW_fZA0M

Arnold's Way - Interview with Roger Haeske (40 year old teenager). includes other 80:10:10 followers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g9hK5nkvKM

Kevin (good channel I think... though not completely raw, mostly, and looks healthy).
http://www.youtube.c...ser/kevingianni


There are so many on youtube... and a lot of them really do look healthy. But then again, the ones that look healthy might be more inclined to film themselves :p

Edited by Matt, 27 January 2009 - 08:57 PM.


#15 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 27 January 2009 - 08:58 PM

I recommend you look at these pictures too

BEFORE AND AFTER RAW
http://www.welikeitr...d/before_after/

there are a few pages so make sure you click next right at the bottom

#16 HaloTeK

  • Guest
  • 254 posts
  • 7
  • Location:chicago

Posted 27 January 2009 - 09:47 PM

I recommend you look at these pictures too

BEFORE AND AFTER RAW
http://www.welikeitr...d/before_after/

there are a few pages so make sure you click next right at the bottom


Should of said that I'd like to see how someone looks on this diet after 50+ years. Especially if they really didn't cheat much (and who doesn't cheat). I have multiple vegan friends that look like they might die with one major illness because of extreme low body fat (and they don't look that bad-- but they don't have much muscle either) I have no doubt that you'd look at lot better on this diet than the standard American diet after a short period (weight loss, and most people look decent when thin). I'm not convinced about b12 recycling in the gut (prove it).

#17 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 27 January 2009 - 10:07 PM

I'm a raw vegan, have been so for a long time. It's a healthy diet. I guess. I'm another anecdotal account, though, and so really don't mean much to science. Are there healthier diets? Of course. What are they? More animal fat? Fewer carbs? Less protein, more protein? Who knows. Some meat and some cooked food is probably good for longevity. But much of this "my diet is healthier than your diet" seems divisive, nonsensical, like guesswork, spitting in the wind, and until the relevant studies start piling up there's always another internet expert shouting about stuff. No one has really worked out much regarding what is "the healthiest" for all people under all circumstances, and you shouldn't kid yourself, either.

Regarding the hippie. You know, considering some of the other cultural stereotypes people foist upon others for their world views, I say being a hippie is a compliment. Maybe the straight corporate stooge is better? Or the puffy, swollen bodybuilder? How about the computer desk jockey? Or the rock star hipster? Ken doll model? Welcome back to high school with this shit.

#18 Forever21

  • Guest
  • 1,918 posts
  • 122

Posted 28 January 2009 - 02:36 AM

Kevin (good channel I think... though not completely raw, mostly, and looks healthy).
http://www.youtube.c...ser/kevingianni


LOL, caloric torpedo



#19 Erok

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 25 posts
  • 0

Posted 28 January 2009 - 02:36 AM

Hi, Matt thanks for posting the links.

Unfortunately there aren't many who have been raw for that long a time (5o years) and have been studied. but there are a good amount, as in not 10's of thousands but probably somewhere in the multiple hundreds to thousands?(don't quote me there) , and many who do not use the high fruit method, cheat because they aren't getting their carbohydrates and are relying on proteins and fats. Most high "protein" foods are really "higher fat with a some protein" foods. I include eggs in my list of unhealthy. Our body dumps animal fat into our arteries, in animals adapted to meat, they do not. There are however quite a few who have been eating for long spans, and children how being raised on raw, and from all of them I talk to, they don't get colds, don't get sick, heal fast, put on muscle fast, don't get sore after working out like they used to, tons of injuries and chronic disease heals up, I hear it across the board, no joke, read some of the raw vegan forums if you don't believe me. I've seen enough before and afters in real life and on the web.


As far as BeyondVeg being used as a source:
Here is a quote for you from someone I was discussing this site with."When one looks at cooked food and asks the question: "How could cooked food be good for us?"
what they find is nothing but reasons why it is good.


This is what that site does. There is no asking of the question: "IS cooked food good for us?"
Rather, "How is it good for us."


Completely not a scientific approach. For instance with 9/11 we have "investigations" into it and the essential questions they ask is "How did the planes make the building collapse?"
Rather than asking the more logical question and more scientific question: "HOW did the building collapse?"


At first glance they appear basically like the same thing, but as we can see clearly, the first question limits the possible answers, whereas the second question is the truly scientific approach where ANY answer that is correct can be accepted as long as it follows logic.

This is how science becomes manipulated. Which in fact doesn't make it science anymore...it makes it barricaded inquiry. You can only ask questions which lead to certain conclusions...
Here's your cap and gown, congrats...now you are free to do...as we tell you.


Beyond Veg indeed.... To far beyond veg that it's in fact almost nothing to do with veg. They should just call it ApproachingMeat.com instead"

Many of em' don't even follow the diets advice and don't eat much fruit or veg, and overdo it on meat and nuts a.k.a concentrated fat sources. Our body produces it's own cholesterol, we don't have to add any.

We don't need as much protein or fat as many think, in fact the excesses lead to many diseases.

Alot of folks here on talk about longevity and disease like "we need to solve cancer, heart problems, etc, then turn off x and y gene and inject this stem cell promoter and turn on this gene" well we can do most of that naturally, through this diet. Countless effects we haven't and would be hard pressed to study (time, money, people willing to do instead of make some wonder drug or pill (big pharma) to sell people, sickness and disease and treatments make money, not as much as cures, and even less...prevention!) Keep 'em comin', keep em' sick, big industry, meat and dairy and fossil fuels, don't you see it all around you? ) are occurring, healthy genes switched on, unhealthy ones switched off, you can SEE the difference in people and disease, and if tested, the markers would show it, I've seen a few studies but my books aren't here, and I don't have the links, sorry.


This isn't meant to be a meat vs no meat thread really though.


It's more about raw vegan high fruit and a pure approach there, for longevity. As far as the spices, they may have some effects on the body, some have some antioxidants, or other phsyiologically active compounds, but their effect may also be the body dealing with the toxins in them, and trying to clear said toxins from the body. They distort our tastebuds from tasting things naturally as they are, and are known as excitotoxins, not on the level of msg and aspartame and more dangerous ones. I can tell you from my experience, and many others I've talked to, that our tastebuds become more refined, and soon you can taste the difference between different pieces of fruit, and fruit taste like candy, and tomatoes and greens taste wonderful, as in when I first made the switch the tastes were muddled, from all the cooked and overspiced food I ate. I still use fresh herbs of different sorts for flavor in some recipes, but I feel way better since cutting out salt, condiments, and other irritants.

And halotek, I don't cheat :p

As far as B12, again, there aren't huge studies, most studies are done on unhealthy people, who have years of toxic buildup, if you want to call it that, who have eaten sub-optimal diets, and have exposed themselves to many toxins, environmental, through food, lifestyle, etc. I am sure there is a post somewhere on the forum about the hundreds of industrial chemicals, plastics, and by-products you can go get tested for that most of us have some level of in our bodies? Think they are benign? Not likely.

The body does naturally work on removings these thigns, but mainly when we stop consuming them all the time and limit our exposure.

Anyways, about B12, one instance is a world class bike rider, he was a cooked food vegan, switched to the standard raw diet that people call hollywood or gourmet raw, lots of spices, lots of raw versions of foods people eat normally, not high fruit, probably plenty of greens, but also heavy handed of nuts, seeds, etc. His B12 levels were tested low numerous times. After adopting the 80-10-10, that is, whole fresh ripe raw fruits, mono-meals or more simplistic meals, lots of greens, and no irritants/spices/condiments, his levels are actually above average now. Not to mention he races gold medalists and keeps up with or ahead of em, and instead of sticking in an IV, he eats fruits and greens after a race. No drugs, no supplements, just perfect food source from the earth. Call it appeal to nature, I think nature is appealing to us and it's about time we listen. You can make your excuses, "oh, it's psychological, this guy just loves nature, so we won't listen". That's attitude doesn't get you to the truth does it? The truth is what's important. I'm not here to scientifically prove it, I feel it, and know it, and yes, there are things to be discovered and learned, but there is inherent truth to a raw vegan high fruit and greens diet on many levels. Sorry for not posting more studies or sitting here on a point by point basis, I am trying to spread the good word. Calorie restriction can happen naturally eating this way as well, with more nutrients and satiation. It also is more appropriate level then what most eat. Why do you think you can eat 3000kcal meal of rice and protein foods (that you had to cook and spice up to be palatable) and still crave something "sweet"?!? Our body knows the difference. Try eating some of the things plain, uncooked, getting it from it's natural state, see how appealing that is, slaughter an animal and eat it raw on the spot, suck on a teet, eat some uncooked rice. A couple million years of some cultures history doesn't mean much compared to the 50million years or more in question.

And again, listen to your body, try the diet out, for a year, get excercise, I see folks on here talking about diets that are good for sedentery lifestyles.... Hello! We are not meant for sedentery lifestyles! Get out, get some excercise, some fresh air, some sun! For real, I've tried half of the diets I see on here, I was jacked up on meat and hormones and protein powders, I know bodybuilders who are strong, want to see one who is a total fruitarian and doesn't even eat the greens that have tons of minerals, protein, alaklaizing minerals, enzymes, phytonutrients, essentail fastty acids, etc! check out richard blackman of fruitarian fitness. I think that greens are essential due to the depleted soil, fruit naturally has more more minerals and other nutrients (as does anything grown!) when the soil is optimal.

But yeah, truth is truth, despite opinion, so research, explore, see what resonates with your body and common sense, and don't bank it all on one study here or there about one micronutrient or hormone!

I'm not pushing anything, just sharing, but yeah, for the planet, for animals, there are many reasons this works out, it just seems to make sense on so many levels. And it works. As it is, I used to eat more meat then probly the paleo folks (heh), and I got real sick from it!

Anyways, enough here for now, just check it out for yourself, and keep an open mind!

Edited by Erok, 28 January 2009 - 02:45 AM.


#20 Erok

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 25 posts
  • 0

Posted 28 January 2009 - 02:47 AM

Lol, forever21, there are some high energy pumped up raw folks out there, for sure, I don't exactly support the cacao or crazy combo-abombos that people make! I'm a fan of keeping it simple, like we stumbled upon a fruit tree or something and had some greens with it. Theres science behind that too, for sure.

Trying to imitate cooked foodists making all this stuff yields sub-optimal results, BUT IT IS GOOD FOR TRANSITION!

#21 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 28 January 2009 - 03:12 AM

So, how long have you been eating exclusively raw fruits and vegetables?

#22 senseix

  • Guest
  • 250 posts
  • 1

Posted 28 January 2009 - 03:17 AM

If you want to convince people not to eat meat, a good goal for both health and ethical reasons, I respectfully advise you not to use pseudo-scientific nonsense like "vibrations." Seeing as you are a raw foodist too, it seems as if much of your reasoning is one big Appeal to Nature fallacy. Cooking foods can have benefits, and no serious scientist would argue that there is anything inherently good about raw food. Finally, spices are awesome. Eat them every day. Garlic, Oregano, Cinnamon, Basil.... they all have proven health benefits and taste great. Oh, and they're "natural"



I'm going to become a raw foodist like an 80/20 split. But still have cooked meats and use spices like you've listed and others. There are benefits to going raw, now going all raw, i haven't jumped on the band wagon to that degree, and still feel that going 100% raw isn't the best way to go about it, but raw vegs, and fruits, have been shown that they have enzymes in them that if you heat them beyond a certain point are killed. To say there hasen't been nothing showing benefits is stretching the truth i feel.

#23 Erok

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 25 posts
  • 0

Posted 28 January 2009 - 05:39 AM

That's awesome senseix! Glad you are making an effort to shift your diet, I think you will experience the difference for yourself, and have more sensitivity to how food affects you. Now, low-fat raw consisting of mostly fruits and greens and veggie-fruits is different from high fat raw with tons of nuts, seeds, prepared many-ingredient dishes, well you get the point. Most people transition, using many ingredients, spices, making things that look and taste like ones favorite cooked counterparts, that is understandable.

Most people would hear me talk about spices and be like what no way? I think during transition they can perhaps be a great aid, just like gourmet raw, also, heavier levels of fat slow the bodies detoxification process, and have that numbing effect that many eat cooked food / heavily spiced / cooked oily meals for, some say to a lesser extent.

Me personally, I notice a huge difference, when I first transitioned, I ate mostly cooked vegan, but some meals had dairy components so not all the way. And to put it quaintly "I loved me some spices".

I would also like to present a good link to read on why we are not omnivores, as well as interesting dietary information on her site, http://www.ecologos.org/omni.htm

#24 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 28 January 2009 - 07:27 AM

I'm going to become a raw foodist like an 80/20 split. But still have cooked meats and use spices like you've listed and others. There are benefits to going raw, now going all raw, i haven't jumped on the band wagon to that degree, and still feel that going 100% raw isn't the best way to go about it, but raw vegs, and fruits, have been shown that they have enzymes in them that if you heat them beyond a certain point are killed. To say there hasen't been nothing showing benefits is stretching the truth i feel.


I didn't say there are never benefits to raw food. I said there is nothing inherently good about the adjective "raw." Some foods, like tomatoes, produce more nutrients when cooked. Others do not. I don't believe in raw foodism or veganism. I believe in using science to improve health and reduce suffering.

There are health problems that come with eating meat, but there is nothing unethical in the practice of eating meat itself. The unethical part comes from creating economic demand for brutality to sentient creatures. When we start producing cultured meat that is engineered to be healthy, I will be the first customer.

I see no evidence to support extreme macronutrient ratios. I advocate something similar to the Zone Diet as far as macronutrient ratios go. Balanced protein is just fine in moderation. Good fats are just fine in moderation. Good carbs are just fine in moderation.

Edited by progressive, 28 January 2009 - 07:50 AM.


#25 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 28 January 2009 - 07:27 AM

Pretty much all the carbs I eat are raw, in the form of salads and berries. Same with most of the fats/oils i eat. It's the meat that I need to cook. Although, I'm sure raw meat--if free of bacteria--would be significantly more healthy (and especially free of AGEs).

#26 senseix

  • Guest
  • 250 posts
  • 1

Posted 28 January 2009 - 08:30 AM

I'm going to become a raw foodist like an 80/20 split. But still have cooked meats and use spices like you've listed and others. There are benefits to going raw, now going all raw, i haven't jumped on the band wagon to that degree, and still feel that going 100% raw isn't the best way to go about it, but raw vegs, and fruits, have been shown that they have enzymes in them that if you heat them beyond a certain point are killed. To say there hasen't been nothing showing benefits is stretching the truth i feel.


I didn't say there are never benefits to raw food. I said there is nothing inherently good about the adjective "raw." Some foods, like tomatoes, produce more nutrients when cooked. Others do not. I don't believe in raw foodism or veganism. I believe in using science to improve health and reduce suffering.

There are health problems that come with eating meat, but there is nothing unethical in the practice of eating meat itself. The unethical part comes from creating economic demand for brutality to sentient creatures. When we start producing cultured meat that is engineered to be healthy, I will be the first customer.

I see no evidence to support extreme macronutrient ratios. I advocate something similar to the Zone Diet as far as macronutrient ratios go. Balanced protein is just fine in moderation. Good fats are just fine in moderation. Good carbs are just fine in moderation.



Raw doesn't mean you can't cook your food, it does mean you don't cook it past a certain temp so is not to damage the naturality of it. If you have to cook a tomato to the point of producing nutrients it wouldn't of had prior, which implies you're heating it past the safe zone of 108-115F, after these levels the digestion enzymes and other good qualities get damaged and at some point destroyed. Just to gain a benefit from cooking the tomato, to me doesn't show much science here. Next you'll be saying throw everything in the microwave that way you can cook it and alter the fresh vegetables or fruits, and some benefit will come from that alteration, though you lost all the goodness prior to changing it's structure and thats ok. Just silly science if you ask me.

#27 Erok

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 25 posts
  • 0

Posted 28 January 2009 - 05:54 PM

For every few nutrients that increase in availability after cooking, thousands more are destroyed.

I do not swear by percent by calorie ratios, as without percent by weight they can be misleading or only part of the picture.

My stance on keeping the diet low fat is oxygenation of the tissues, and blocking of insulin's function,since fat has a clogging effect and must be processed through the lymph system whereas sweet / sub-acid / citrus fruits / greens are broken down quite readily. If one eats a large amount of fats, they will not be experiencing the optimal level of digestion, assimilation, and ultimately health. So, since insulin is being blocked (by excess fat), the body releases MORE and this creates many of the health problems many individuals including many scientists, to believe that fruit or insulin are responsible for these effects (the carbs=aging could be seen in a new light), when really, it's the FAT! I can add some studies later.

(Let me add this to the carb=aging forum)
From the study linked to there, these were the qualities linked to the longevity.
  • Low fasting insulin levels -
  • Reduction in fasting glucose -
  • Lower body temperature- Present in low-fat raw foodists
  • Low percentage of body (visceral) fat - Present in low-fat raw foodists
  • Reduced thyroid levels-
  • Low triglycerides - Present in low-fat raw foodists
  • Low fasting leptin levels (Leptin is so new that it has only recently been measured in centenarians, but it has been measured in calorie-restricted animals. Since leptin correlates with and even controls these other biomarkers in humans, this is also probably true in centenarians.)
And I would be willing to bet the rest are as well, but will have to locate some studies if they are in my materials.

I think on a relative level, raw meat is probably less harmful then cooked meat, but consuming putrefying animal matter is not healthy from what I've studied, same with dairy, cheese, butter.

I linked this page earlier but wanted to paste a few quotes,

Some quotes from Lawrence Forti M.S ChE (ecologos.org)

---------------------
"The "Paleolithic argument" runs something like this: The proto-human was indeed a frugivore (eating primarily fruit, such as modern chimps) 50 million years ago (MYA) to 2 MYA, when the "appearance of stone tools and cultures at this time" coincided with "increased meat-eating"[]. Well, that's the end of the argument, as its fatal flaw is revealed: the fact is that "increased meat-eating" occurred ONLY because of tool use, and since tools, including fire, are a product of culture, not Nature, cultural practices, such as those powerful self-destructive cultural practices of today, are totally unrelated to our natural nutritional needs, which are programmed at the genetic level.
"

"Although some cultural human may have, post-tool, consumed rotting animal flesh intentionally, the inherent repulsiveness of which was masked by the destructive, pyrolytic effects of fire, the fact is that the natural human would not have left any lingering evidence of its natural diet, just as the modern chimp does not leave any trace of its existence. Eat some fruit, drop the seeds on the ground, eat some leaves, eat some nuts -- where is the physical evidence that lingers for 10's or 100's of thousands of years?? None! So, all so-called Paleolithic "evidence" of human flesh-eating is merely a collection of self-selected, statistically-insignificant cultural artifacts, totally unrelated to our species' true nutritional needs
"

" Further, such physical evidence of human flesh-eating, such as tool-scarred bones or ancient fire pits, is found only in northern areas which are well outside of the natural ecological niche for our tropical ape species; thus, any evidence of cultural diets so remote from our proper ecological niche is totally irrelevant to any understanding of what the natural diet for our species is. This ecologically-relevant, and crucially-important fact is universally, and conveniently, ignored in any discussions of Paleolithic humans. Paleolithic (tool using) humans are not natural humans and are just as irrelevant as any modern cultural group and their modern self-destructive dietary practices."
---------

So I am not even harping on ethical or moral issues at the moment, just health here. But when a false stance on an evolutionary perspective is used to somehow justify meat eating, it falls apart easily.

We do not do well on putrefactive products of any sort.

#28 HaloTeK

  • Guest
  • 254 posts
  • 7
  • Location:chicago

Posted 28 January 2009 - 08:35 PM

Do these individuals look healthy? They run a site called genefitnutrition.com. Seems like they've been on the 10-10-80 diet for a while. They are basking in the raw goodness of nature! I've posted them because they probably haven't fallen off the bandwagen and have stuck to raw eating for 20+ years (picture is evidence!). Most other raw foodists have probably benefited from falling off the bandwagen from time to time. Looks more like the high fructose content of their diet is causing their muscles to shrink and skin to be shredded by the sun.

#29 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 28 January 2009 - 09:54 PM

For those that dismiss the raw food lifestyle, I think this is wrong. It's a healthy way to live... Dr Fontana who studies the CRON group also found that raw foodists limit calorie intake (just not as much) and they also show just as good health markers as those on CRON. There were a few that CRON did slightly better on but only a few, Things like glucose, insulin, blood pessure, inflammation and all that stuff, all was very good in raw foodists studies by dr Luigi Fontana.

#30 Erok

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 25 posts
  • 0

Posted 28 January 2009 - 11:04 PM

Yes Matt, also there are studies showing lowered levels of IGF-1 and IGF-3 in lower protein diet, this one is also CR.


Aging Cell. 2008 Oct;7(5):681-7.
Long-term effects of calorie or protein restriction on serum IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 concentration in humans.

Fontana L, Weiss EP, Villareal DT, Klein S, Holloszy JO.
Division of Geriatrics & Nutritional Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO 63110, USA. lfontana@dom.wustl.edu


Reduced function mutations in the insulin/IGF-I signaling pathway increase maximal lifespan and health span in many species. Calorie restriction (CR) decreases serum IGF-1 concentration by ~40%, protects against cancer and slows aging in rodents. However, the long-term effects of CR with adequate nutrition on circulating IGF-1 levels in humans are unknown. Here we report data from two long-term CR studies (1 and 6 years) showing that severe CR without malnutrition did not change IGF-1 and IGF-1 : IGFBP-3 ratio levels in humans. In contrast, total and free IGF-1 concentrations were significantly lower in moderately protein-restricted individuals. Reducing protein intake from an average of 1.67 g kg(-1) of body weight per day to 0.95 g kg(-1) of body weight per day for 3 weeks in six volunteers practicing CR resulted in a reduction in serum IGF-1 from 194 ng mL(-1) to 152 ng mL(-1). These findings demonstrate that, unlike in rodents, long-term severe CR does not reduce serum IGF-1 concentration and IGF-1 : IGFBP-3 ratio in humans. In addition, our data provide evidence that protein intake is a key determinant of circulating IGF-1 levels in humans, and suggest that reduced protein intake may become an important component of anticancer and anti-aging dietary interventions.
PMID: 18843793



And HaloTek, while I appreciate the fact you went looking for pictures of raw fooders, your statements are in no way substantiated even by this one picture you have selected. I did not find their paritcular diet listed, but it does look like they eat raw fruits and vegetables, maybe nuts, seeds, it doesn't really say. This is not the "80-10-10" diet, which is just a calonutrient ratio in % from calories, but is a coined diet term by Dr. Graham as well in which he advocates that cruciferous vegetables like brocolli (was mentioned on the site) and kale and roots and tubers (not mentioned) are too hard on our digestion and not optimal. These folks may consume other sub-optimal foods, or higher amounts of nuts, seeds, as well, but I will not speak for them.
They do not look unhealthy to me, low bodyfat percentage is often attained by low- fat raw vegan, and this is a good thing. Low visceral body fat is linked to bio-markers of longevity. They appear to live in a sunny area, and probably get high levels of sun exposure during peak hours to bare skin. Granted, raw-fooders often fare better in the sun so their likely SAD (standard american diet) counterparts would likely be blistered. I can't speak to the quantity (or quality) of fruits, greens, etc that they eat, so I can't tell you what micronutrients they may or may not be lacking in. As far as "falling off the bandwagon", many have transition periods, but many I've run into stick with it, those who avoid fruit because of faulty logic / reasoning about "sugars", are more likely to fall off and eat cooked starches, or keep on with high levels of fat, (the greens and fat approach) if the calories aren't coming from CHO in a raw food diet, they are going to be made up for elsewhere, primarily fat.
I'd also like to add that what someone does MOST of the time is what is truly important, I do not deviate myself. With the ratios, and with alternating food types, this can add up, and be done on a weekly, monthly, yearly basis, there is room for variation and having a bit more of something one week and a bit less another.

What builds muscle is weight-bearing excercise, there are several raw-vegan bodybuilders, endurance atheletes, and raw-vegan atheletes participating in many other sports, many on a proffesional level. Again, we do not need as much protein as we are led to believe. We need enough amino acids, and our natural diet provides that.

In any case, thanks for the picture :p

Edited by Erok, 28 January 2009 - 11:06 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users