Recently I’ve been trying to take it easy on my friend fruit. For years I’ve advocated an entirely sugar-free approach to overcoming certain health problems, and when my diet was very high in fat, fruit was a major aggravator of health issues ? like tooth pain, them little tongue bump things, emotional irrationality, joint pain, allergies, asthma, and fat gain ? and zits too. Aurora’s response is identical, only worse on many of those fronts. Same for dozens of others that I’ve had these discussions with.
However, my past experiences with fruit weren’t necessarily congruent with my newer, more recent condemnations of fruit. For example, in 2005 I did all kinds of ?cleanses? and forever improved my health doing so. These cleanses were based primarily around sweet fruits, fruit-only smoothies, sweet vegetable juices, and raw vegetables ? with no added fat or protein (these foods all have some fat and protein though). During these cleanses, I ate as much food as I cared for.
They were awesome. My skin got incredibly clear. Fresh breath and body odor. Teeth actually got whiter, stronger, and cleaner feeling. Energy levels were pretty good, although I had a tendency towards feeling really hungry and a little light-headed. Digestion saw permanent improvements. I went from being a smelly farter to an odorless, nearly non-farter in the course of like, a week. Seasonal allergies went bye-bye. It was pretty cool, despite losing considerable amounts of muscle mass in short periods of time on these bad boys.
But then I jumped onto Schwarzbein (not literally?damn), and experienced the opposite. For those who aren’t familiar, Schwarzbein is a meat, starch, veg, and added fat, three squares a day kind of lady. Following her guidelines with a little bit of a Weston A. Price Foundation twist (raw dairy, fermented veggies, etc.), I experienced a huge drop in hunger, rapid muscle gain without exercise, disappearance of sugar cravings (whereas I couldn’t go 2 hours without craving fruit prior to that), and tremendous emotional stability. It was pretty amazing ? probably the perfect counterbalancing regimen to the fruity, muscle-wasting place I had come from.
This was short-lived however, and it only took me 6 months to start running into trouble ? from being on a prolonged low-carb diet compounded with the adrenal workout of overexercising.
Anyway, the reason this is all on my mind right now is this?
1) I’m doing a lot of hiking right now. It’s the summer in Colorado, and I want to be able to hike and not have highly negative health consequences from it like I experienced while hiking a lot on a low-carb diet. A low-carb diet is also highly inferior to a high-carb diet for endurance athletic performance. I didn’t realize this at first, because on a low-carb diet I was using fat for fuel, which is a nice even-keel energy source. Because of that, I never got tired and never got hungry and didn’t lose muscle mass. It seemed, while hiking by myself, that my performance was actually improved. It wasn’t until I started hiking with people who I used to hike circles around that I realized just how much my pace had slowed. I literally couldn’t keep up ? even when I went out with a middle-aged fish biologist ? a sedentary office worker most of the time, with a big belly and little toothpicks for legs (this despite my 6-pack and chiseled tree trunks).
2) Although I experienced hunger following high-carb/low-fat meals in the past, after overfeeding, I’ve found that by far the most satiating food is a high-carb/low-fat meal. I first noticed this when I ate a big waffle with fruit and syrup and didn’t realize it was past lunch time until 7 hours had elapsed. A similar meal would have left me starving by 10am in my exercise more/eat less era, but I found that the rules of the game change when you are supplying adequate calories to meet your daily requirements.
This was all put into better perspective when I recently read a book I never thought I’d get around to reading ? Doug Graham’s 80-10-10 Diet. (Note: Much of this book is dumb, and prolonged fruitarianism is dangerous – leading to imbalances for many, and a striking inability to properly digest and metabolize a mixed diet for others).
What I was surprised to hear from Graham, was his thorough understanding of the negatives of eating lots of fat (as well as purine-rich meat) and lots of fruit together ? even from wholesome sources. Granted, most of the wholesome sources were omega 6-heavy fat sources like nuts and avocado, which I’ve noticed to be a far worse combo with fruit than primarily saturated fat (like cream or coconut), but he understood this ?bad combination? quite thoroughly, and had a virtual army of testimonials from people who thought fruit was the enemy, but later found out that the fat was causing their negative fruit experiences.
Even more impressive was Graham’s claim that the biggest cause for failure on his extremely high-carbohydrate, low-fat, low-protein diet was UNDEREATING. In fact, one of the main focuses of the book was making sure you calculated your caloric needs and were, at the very least, meeting those needs with ample food intake. Those who seem to be the most successful on his program, are indeed those who focus on adequate caloric intake ? such as this veggie vixen (shown above) who reports eating 4,100 calories on her rest day (the camera-man in this video is an endurance athlete who reports eating up to 7,000+ calories per day on Graham’s 80-10-10 protocol). Fruit hasn’t exactly put her on her death bed yet.
Anyway, to give some full disclosure, I’m eating the hell out of some fruit to see what kind of performance improvement I can get from it, and to see if, on a lower-fat, high-calorie diet combined with exercise like that being used with great success by 180 followers JT and Riles, my former negatives from fruit consumption can be eliminated. Although starch would be a preferred fuel in some respects ? as a larger percentage of starch breaks down to glucose, whereas much of fruit sugar is converted to fat in the liver ? it’s simply impossible to force down lots of starch without taking in a load of fat with it. Fruit, however, is quite delicious all by itself, and I had no problem taking in 300 grams of carbohydrates for breakfast this morning. This can definitely be felt on the trail!
My Conclusions on Low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets?
Most people try to eat a low-fat diet and cut calories at the same time. This is the worst possible diet known to man. In general, the higher your diet is weighted towards carbohydrates, the greater the muscle mass you will lose while in calorie deficit ? and the greatest out-of-control hunger and cravings you will experience. Never attempt to use a very high-carbohydrate, low-calorie diet for weight loss. You’ll be sorry if you do.
When comparing fat vs. fruit for athletic performance, you’d be a friggin? idiot to think that fat is a preferable fuel source when compared with carbohydrate ? from fruit, starch, or whatever. Fat is pretty good for very long duration, easygoing exercise. Fruit gives much better performance results, assuming you are eating sufficient quantities of it.
The biggest problem with low-fat diets is muscle wasting and protein losses. However, with a eucaloric or hypercaloric diet, a low-fat diet is not catabolic at all, does not make you uncontrollably hungry, does not generally lend itself to emotional instability, does not cause muscle loss, and does not do anything but make you feel really good ? especially while exercising. In fact, calories are more muscle-sparing than protein. The higher in calories you go, the less protein you need to maintain lean body mass. Graham asserts that with a diet containing ample calories, there is no such thing as protein deficiency. I agree wholeheartedly (unless you are eating only one food that doesn’t contain all essential amino acids, but no one does this). Consider the following?
Ancel Keys cited work that pointed out that nitrogen balance could be maintained on as little as 30 grams of protein per day for an adult male on a high-calorie diet. T.L. Cleave witnessed rural Zulu’s on diets with only about 5% of their calories coming from protein who were in great health. Human milk is very low in protein compared to that of other mammals, suggesting lower protein requirements. Plus, this is the most anabolic time during a human being’s life ? and this rapid anabolism occurs on a diet containing 6% of calories as protein.
Also, kwashiorkor, a disease of protein deficiency, is made WORSE by supplementing protein. It is cured, and sufferers are alleviated of the ailment, when given juice, Gatorade, etc. ? signifying that the protein deficiency is caused, not by lack of protein, but by lack of calories which triples protein requirements.
Other primates average less than 10% of their caloric intake as protein, and generally have a 500% greater ratio of strength to bodyweight than humans. No matter how you examine it, we are an awful lot like other primates.
Anyway, that’s enough rambling for today. But I know many of you have tremendous cognitive dissonance when it comes to fruit restriction. After all, this is the staple food of our closest animal relatives (who are not vegan 365 days per year ? and you shouldn’t be either), and one of the only foods on earth that humans can chew, digest, and assimilate without cooking it. So hey, try some if you dare, but note ? other primates that live on fruit do NOT eat a lot of meat and fat with it. Something to think about. Let you know how my fruity escapade turns out, as I continue to eat at least one “fruit meal” per day.
Mercola has a new interview with Dr. Richardson about new studies in fructose metabolism up on his YT channel.
Dr. Richardson eh? Last time I checked it was Dr. Richard Johnson. Thanks for the tip though. Knowing Johnson it will probably be a good sermon on why combining purines and fructose may be a tough endeavor for humans to pull off.
Embarrassing combo of name remembrance! Same guy. And similar points. He spoke of emerging studies on using anti-gout meds to help obese patients.
I'm not so concerned about the health implications of Veggie Vixen's over consumption of fruit, as I am about those two lumps of silicon in her chest.
Although, oddly enough after watching that video I have a strong craving for raw milk.
I've seen a bunch of Durianrider's and Freelee's youtube vids. They are pretty entertaining. I must say, I really like that they don't believe in deprivation – quite the opposite: eat lots to perform at your best. Eat piddly amounts and suffer a piddly life.
They're for sure militant about the vegan thing, both because they believe that fruit is the optimal food source and anything but 100% compliance will result in disaster… and also because they're vegans for ethical reasons. Which makes for a lot of.. erm… passion about the subject.
Thanks Veiled Glory. Here's the link to the Johnson interview. I listened in to part 1 and so far it's a great complement to this post – he jumps right into fructose in fruit vs. fructose in refined sugars…
Their videos are addictive. So entertaining. I do think that their passion for QUANTITY is what has been their saving grace on what otherwise is a great diet for causing serious health problems long-term with a very high failure rate.
Dude, if you want entertaining veganism, check out liferegenerator's videos on youtube. Gold! That guy is awesome.
Matt, Peat recommends high protein with a probably high carb diet. Well, anyway, could you give some of the proof you have (emphasis on "proof") that refined sugar is bad? I've been searching, but, to tell you the truth, have found none.
Doesn't Ray Peat say something like this- no fruit juice with meat? For different reasons, though maybe.
Also- the low protein thing is also advocated by Nora Gedgaudes, but with fat as the predominant energy source, rather than carbs. That was one reason I was surprised when I first found you advocating against low carb diets because of excessive protein. I got into this reading Gedgaudes recently, after being a vegan and then WAPFer, and they're all against excess protein. It was surprising, but I guess it's true that lots of folks do suggest a high protein diet.
Thanks for the post, Matt.
No. I'm not aware of any "proof" anywhere that any food commonly eaten in the world today is inherently good or inherently bad.
But reason, personal experience, worldwide trends since the dawn of refined sugar, and pivotal works by people like John Yudkin, Richard Johnson, T.L. Cleave, Weston A. Price, Melvin Page, Nancy Appleton, and dozens of others makes me awfully suspicious of it.
Hey, you should come see Aurora's face right now. She's got acne for the first time in her life after a steady diet of Haagen Daz ice cream post jaw surgery. It can't be the sugar though. Must be something else.
Do you have an ref on Kwashiorkor getting worse by supplementing protein?
I've done much research on PEM and I've never come across that conclusion.
Matt, here are the things I'd like to know from your fruit experiment.
1: Does it raise your uric acid levels, you would need tests for before and after.
2: Do you ever feel weird symptoms from eating too much fruit at one time? (like too much potassium)
3: Do you ever feel side effects from fruit compounds? (I get slight dull headaches from more than 2 apples at a time because of the Salicylates <— at least this is what i assume, maybe its just toxins from pesticides or an allergy)
It should be pointed out that Dr. Mercola's attractive wife (or is it GF?) is a raw foodist which should make for interesting conversations between the two.
Wasn't this whole sugar "proof" thing discussed a while back with endless comments–it's near-impossible to "prove" any nutrition idea.
I second the ice cream, acne association.
The term "high protein diet" is thrown around a lot even though there are large variations. Peat recommends about 100g, which would be similar to most tradiational diets. Then you get people who say 2g/lb bodyweight or 60% calories by protein (Usain Bolt–is he just plain wrong)…
I'd be curious how these high fruitarians avoid candida. I know Dr Doug eats (or at least did) eat huge salads so perhaps high green intake with high fruit combats candida overgrowth.
So, just to clarify: this fruit experiment is a bad idea for someone (like myself) who hasn't gotten the basal temps up and the metabolism working correctly? I'm still working out this adrenal fatigue/low temp/hypothyroid issue, and I'm really restricting fruit. I feel like I need a partner on this!
That veggie vixen already sports the typical veggie-wrinkles around the mouth area. A dead giveaway.
Question: When you are talking about high amounts of fat and protein being consumed at the same time as high amounts of fruit sugars, do you literally mean at the same time? In the same meal, or the same day? Could you go one day eating high fat and protein and the next switching to high fruit sugar?
Mercola is a raw foodist too – just not the vegan kind. He advocates eating some raw meat and dairy along with loads of raw veggies. He's on more of an anti-carb/anti-sugar kick at the moment.
So are we saying we should be cutting down fat? I LOVE this whole high fat diet I've been on for a few years now. I don't mind restricting the PUFAs, but coconut oil and butter are definitely my main sources of calories. Or is it you can either be high carb or high fat, but not both? I am getting so confused… because like you said, high starch just isn't good without butter and such.
Or is it really dependent on what your body is craving (although we ignore our body when it's craving sugar and caffeine and…)?
Good post. I'll give the Mercola YouTube a shot, as my natural reaction is to think that excessive fruit will lead to fructose overdose and kill you! If you can't tell, I spend a lot of time in the Paleo camp and am currently switching to a much higher carb and lower fat diet. It's hard to get my mind over that mental hurdle. Going from 50g of carbs a day to 300g plus is quite a shift, thank goodness I like sweet potatoes!
Matt, it looks like your ideas may be converging with those that have found long-term success. Let's look at some people that have proven longevity:
Jack LaLanne(age 96): Jack LaLanne begins each and every day with 50 grams of soy protein. The Jack LaLanne diet is not completely vegetarian, but he doesn't eat chicken, red meat or white sugar. He gets most of his protein from egg whites, soy protein and occasionally fish.
The Jack LaLanne diet is not a low-carb diet, but he does stick strictly to natural grains such as brown rice and whole wheat.
LaLanne also eats at least ten fresh, raw vegetables a day. He hasn't had dessert since 1929 and never eats between meals or after 9 p.m.
Share Guide: What do you think about the current low-carb craze?
Jack LaLanne: It’s a bunch of bull! If God, or nature, or whatever you want to call it didn’t want you to mix carbohydrates, starches and fats, you’d never have a grain, you’d never have a vegetable or a fruit, would you? What’s in a grain? It’s got carbohydrates, starches, fats, sugar. It’s got everything in it. Why does nature do that? One guy says don’t mix carbohydrates, and the other guy says don’t mix protein with it; it’s all a bunch of lard, something to sell a book. And the poor public is so confused, they don’t know what to do. That’s why I give my lectures.
Bob Delmontique(age 90): Delmonteque approves a diet that is 50 percent carbohydrates, 30 percent protein and 20 percent fat. He is not a fan of the low-carb craze that has swept the nation.
Art Linkletter (passed away at age 97):I take very good care of myself,? Linkletter says. ?I’ve never smoked, drank, or used any kind of drugs, except medical drugs when needed. I’ve been an athlete all my life and weigh the same now as when I got out of college, which is very important in this age of obesity. I’m very strong on eating fish, chicken, and fresh fruits and vegetables. I love a dessert, but I only eat half and eat it very slowly.
Don Wildman(age 77):
"…his diet is low on meat, fat, junk food, and alcohol."
And if you don't like the "studies of one", here is a group…
7th Day Adventists: The vegetarian diet recommended by Seventh-day Adventists includes the generous use of whole grain breads, cereals and pastas, a liberal use of fresh vegetables and fruits, a moderate use of legumes, nuts, seeds. It can also include low fat dairy products such as milk, yogurt and cheeses and eggs. It is best to avoid high saturated fat and cholesterol foods such as: beef, lamb, pork, chicken, fish and seafood. Coffee, tea and alcoholic beverages provide few nutrients and may interfere with the absorption of essential nutrients.
Beside the 7th Day Adventists, these guys are all athletic/exercisers including weight training, eat higher carb, fresh fruits and veggies, and prefer low fat sources of protein (which would make it low PUFA). Also low in table sugar.
I think these examples show that you are on the right track Grasshopper, LOL!
I've never gained more weight since re-introducing carbs into my diet than when I did high-carb/high-fat, low/moderate protein. During this time, I didn't crave protein at all, since I was coming off several years of very-low carb. All I wanted was potatoes and pasta, dripping with butter and cream and cheese. And I gained 30 lbs over a couple of months and with only about 100 calories more, per day, than usual. Granted, I was recovering from a long period of restriction and carb deprivation. But still.
In fact, all the times in my life where I've experienced massive, rapid fat gain, I have been HCHF.
I'm doing a stint of low-fat, very high-carb with about 10-15% protein right now and eating to appetite. I feel the best on this diet than on any other, actually. Most energy, most satiation.
Timely post. I'm having fun learning about detox right now and playing with some light monofood fasting. Right now I'm doing two days of nothing but watermelon. Since watermelons are everywhere I thought it was good timing. It's fun, but I won't be joining the fruity cult anytime soon. I likes my potatoes and butter, dangit. ;)
Matt, what do you think about a low-calorie milk diet for its lean mass sparing effects? Would you have to skim the milk to make that work?
I had acne in a no sugar diet with lots of fat, starch and real food. Things are complex. With "proof", however, I meant double blind studies with controls, a basic metabolic argument or something of that sort. One can do that for linoleic acid, for instance, and as Stephan Guyenet himself has shown it does disrupt thyroid signaling among other evils: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/omega-6-linoleic-acid-suppresses.html
There are no such things for sugar though. Mostly anecdotes and fear… BTW, it could easily be the processed diary in the Haagen Daz. For me dairy is poison, and I don't even mean Ice cream, but plain raw milk. Hope I got you thinkin'.
I just listened to the Dr. Mercola YouTube videos and they seem to be of the same position that excess fructose from non-processed fruit could be harmful or you could be fine (assuming no prior insulin resistence). The "fruititarians" always make me wonder though with all the bananas that they eat. Most I've heard about are endurance athletes so maybe it all gets used up in the run. Thoughts? The more I think about it, the more I come back to tubers, fruit, meat, and veggies = don't under-eat. I just started trying out starches, meat, fruit, and no added fruit. Feels pretty good so far. It's just hard to get over the thought of eating 400g of carbs everyday after following high fat paleo for so long. Oh yeah, this coincides with doing the Insanity workout as well. Good discussion.
Good post Matt. I've also been experimenting with occasional fruit meals and juice. It has added some good variety without any negative effects. The only thing is that I find I usually don't eat enough fruit to feel full for very long. But no blood sugar crashes or anything like that. And in the summer I don't always feel like eating a heavy hot meal.
I may increase to two meals per day of fruit and one of starch to see if there are any benefits or negative consequences, if I can live without my morning eggs/potatoes for a while
I can't say I'm fond of raw milk anymore either. And lean mass sparing effect? I dunno. I lost considerable lean mass and gained fat without much weight change while milking it. Some clearly notice substantial benefits from drinking it. I had some perks in my metabolism "stats" and some rock hard teeth but that's about it.
As for sugar, Stephan's most recent post is about nutrients affecting metabolism and appetite – and supplying more nutritious food equaling weight loss. He has another genius post about fiber removal slowing down metabolism, inducing insulin resistance, etc. Refined sugar is nutrient and fiber-free, perhaps why it is so sinister. Read Hugh Trowell, Denis Burkitt, Weston A. Price, and T.L. Cleave and let me know if you feel they have sufficiently proven that refined sugar is a primary culprit, if not THE primary culprit, behind metabolic syndrome.
I don't avoid refined sugar out of fear. I avoid refined sugar because I don't like feeling like shit, with toothaches, acne, irrationality, out of control hunger, and a low body temperature.
Thanks homey. This post is strictly about what is the best fuel for athletic performance. If one had to choose between upping fruit and upping fat, what would be the verdict? My answer to that is VERY clear. A higher carbohydrate intake is almost always going to perform better for those engaged in rigorous exercise. That doesn't mean zero fat, but the less fat you eat, the more carbs you can squeeze in.
It's certainly interesting that the diets of most of Africa, where people are lean and have no metabolic syndrome as well as the pre-hyperinsulinemia epidemic among the Pima Indians, was about 70-80% carbohydrate, 10-20% fat, and 10-15% protein. Sounds an awful lot like the Kitavans.
I had a dialogue about this with Russ Farris recently (pre-stroke), and how during wartime famines protein was mistakenly given for rehab. Consider that Kwashiorkor is a disease striking mostly 1-3 year olds, and that orange juice is 7% protein, breast milk is 6% protein. Of course, missing amino acids could cause protein deficiency as well. Note that young children are also more prone to the disease because they need MORE protein than adults. Considering that breast milk is 6% protein, and they need more protein than adults, what does this say for adult protein requirements?
Watermelons are not very calorie dense. Consider trying it sometime with a more calorie-dense fruit (bananas are about the only way to do it). You might spare protein completely by doing that.
Yeah, this post hints at the fact that low-fat eating is only dangerous IF it is too low in calories (or comprised of refined carbohydrate, which is known to inflate appetite without a corresponding rise in metabolism). Otherwise it's fine.
I mostly mean not at the same meal. I think http://www.jayrobb.com gives a pretty good idea of how to eat fruit to get the benefits without the drawbacks.
Sorry for the confusion. It's inevitable with a post like this I guess. A metabolically healthy person can, without question, combine starch and fat together with no ill consequence whatsoever. Perhaps fruit and fat together as well.
Dougie feels strongly that candida avoidance comes from restricting fat to at least 20% and preferably much lower as a percentage of calories as well as eating sufficient calories.
Interesting experiment. No blood tests for me though. Yikes! Ha ha. Pussy. LOL.
400 grams of carbs per day ain't nuthin. Little Chinese people eat nearly 500 grams per day, eat 33% more calories per unit of body weight, and weigh 20% less (according to the collective China Study data). Sounds like hypermetabolism to me (this data is also true of sedentary office workers). And I gaurantee that if you took fasting insulin readings from a fruitarian eating over 1,000 grams of carbs per day, they would almost invariably be lower than someone on a low-carb diet. Doug Graham's a tad bit leaner than Dr. Atkins ever could have dreamed of being.
Justin and Corrie-
That's a good question. It's no secret that I'm looking to make RRARF for restoring adrenal function/thyroid/body temps/insulin sensitivity as unrestricted as possible. There have been a lot of whiners with cognitive dissonance over my fruit restriction. I welcome your experiments with it. For now, I feel much more confident minimizing it like I mentioned in the free eBook (www.180degreehealth.com), especially when the free eBook suggests such liberal amounts of fat.
Good anwser Matt. My curiosity lies more, however, into what the mere addition of sugar would do to an otherwise adequate diet, which, I accept, nothing easy to come by.
BTW, do you consume organ meats frequently? If your answer is no, I send ya a metaphorical punch in the face. I think a diet can't be adequate nowadays without them, specially given that none of us has a brix meter.
*is nothing easy to come by.
Thanks Matt, so no worries about fructose from whole fruit for you? Also to extend on the protein thoughts, do you think it's necessary to get 30% or 1g/lb/bdwt when working out working out every day? When I start to put things together and use readily available foods (very little processing) and leaner meats, it's hard to get fat above 15%.
Just my 2 cents about sugar & acne. I have never had acne in my life and I was raised on 3 square meals of chocolate cake! IMHO hormones, stress and environment are the main suspects when it comes to skin problems. My skin has suffered from dry patches since moving into an old historical building.
Nice post Matt, but each post leaves me more confused about my own "diet." If we are kicking fat to the curb, how do you feel about low fat dairy products?
Interesting post. I am really surprised by the looks of that chick in the video. Most vegans and especially fruitarians I have seen look horrible. And on top of being a fruitarian she is a marathon runner and they usually look horrible too. But, she looks really really good. Definitely not the the emaciated or skinny/fat look of most vegans and marathon runners.
Back many years ago I did a fruit juice only diet for a few weeks and I felt absolutely amazing. Probably the best i have ever felt. The problems was I lost a lot of muscle extremely rapidly. I wonder if I could have gotten the benefits without the muscle loss if I would have just massively increased my calories like these guys.
Also, just thought of another one. As I'm looking to eat natural, nutrient dense foods, where does white rice lie. I've been eating a lot of sweet potatoes for my starchy carbs but if white rice is beneficial, that would be a nice addition. I don't want to do brown rice as I think most of the nutrients in it are indigestible within the bran/husk. So this leaves me with: Fruit, veggies, tubers, lean meats, eggs, and maybe white rice? I usually like to eat some rice chex with milk after a workout. I have started to avoid most nuts, seeds and man-made fats (butter and oils). My fats have been coming from within meat and eggs. This is quite a shift for me and I just started it so I'm curious to see how it goes. These types of posts give me the confidence to give it a shot and believe that excess carbs might be ok. Thanks!
@JT: I have also experienced high energy and mental clarity when I was a raw vegan eating mostly fruits. I did not do it for long but I was very malnourished during that period and it did not fix my health problems.
I also find it interesting that fruits do not seem to give a rush and crash, but a steady energy. I do not really get any hypoglycemic reaction to them, whereas other starches (in particular wheat) are more likely to make me feel tired after.
Billions of people live healthy lives eating mostly white rice. It is also at least 50% of my diet every day.
I don't really believe that a 100% raw fruitarian diet is optimal. I actually do better on sugar cane than I do on most fruits when I am in the US. But, when I am in a tropical location where the fruit is fresh ripe and local I do great on it. For example, I do especially great on fresh papaya in the tropics, but when I buy it at the grocery store it makes me feels sick. Probably because it is GM.
Hey JT, great to hear from you. I'm going to try my best to stick with 50-55% carbs, probably 25-30% protein and let fat fall where it will. Carbs will be fruit, white rice, and sweet potatoes. My activity is a mix sprints at softball, heavy strength work in the core lifts, and a lot of those Insanity DVDs. Good dialogue here.
Hey Matt, thanks for the invite to comment. It was interesting to read your thoughts. I'm flattered that you have featured me in your blog, very cool, my blog is http://www.sweetjuicyfreelee.com.
JT I agree sugar cane rocks, I had 2 litres this morning after my 40km bike ride.
Great to read that you have obviously "got it" as far as eating sufficient carbohydrate calories from fruit goes. Just curious are you following this lifestyle 100%? Can you share a day in your eating with quantities and calories? Plus your height, weight and activity levels.
Nice I like the following observation, same in my experience also!
"a low-fat diet is not catabolic at all, does not make you uncontrollably hungry, does not generally lend itself to emotional instability, does not cause muscle loss, and does not do anything but make you feel really good ? especially while exercising. In fact, calories are more muscle-sparing than protein."
A few things…
As I'm sure you are aware, there is no medical terminology for protein deficiency. Kwashiorkor yes is due to a macronutrient deficiency, that of which will not be experienced on a Low fat raw vegan lifestyle that includes adequate calorie intake. I'm sure you will agree, it's impossible to starve oneself to health.
"Note: Much of this book is dumb, and prolonged fruitarianism is dangerous "
Matt it's starting to seem like you didn't read the book right through if you think that it encourages fruitarianism? Dr Graham himself recommends the consumption of 2-6% of daily calories come from greens with the addition of nuts and seeds, this is not fruitarian diet. Fruitarians ONLY eat fruit.
To say the book is "dumb" makes you sound well a little um…dumb, which Im sure you're not! It would be great to hear why you feel this. Go read the book from cover to cover :)
"this (fruit) is the staple food of our closest animal relatives (who are not vegan 365 days per year ? and you shouldn’t be either)"
– can you expand on this?
Lol!! I love this…
"I literally couldn’t keep up ? even when I went out with a middle-aged fish biologist ? a sedentary office worker most of the time, with a big belly and little toothpicks for legs (this despite my 6-pack and chiseled tree trunks)."
"Never attempt to use a very high-carbohydrate, low-calorie diet for weight loss."
– Yes very true, a low calorie any diet will eventually lead to fat gain.
Please bullet point any questions you have as im pretty busy :-)
Great blog site you have here.
In general I could see a hypercaloric vegan diet consisting of mostly raw fruit and vegetables working quite well, but… how do you resolve the issue of vitamin B12? There is none in non-animal foods.
One of my favorite things that put veganism in perspective – even cows aren't vegan. They eat a fair number of bugs with their grass. Never mind the habits of our closest primate relatives – up for a little grooming, anyone? How about termites on a stick? Kinda like ants on a log, I guess. And some higher order primates commit infanticide on rival family groups – and eat the babies. Nope, definitely not vegan 365 days a year. But more power to you if you can hack long-term without getting sick.
Keep in mind the fruit primates eat hasn't ripened yet and is still of a starch structure. Primates don't consume simple carbs or ripened fruit.
I came to the conclusion that on a sedentary day when you're not on a higher fat diet your body will burn 50% of it's calories as glycogen and the other 50% as free fatty acids. If you're on a higher carb diet 25% of the carbs will dissipate while 75% gets converted to free fatty acids of the portions that aren't converted to glycogen. So if you're taking in 4000 calories a day of low protein, low fat, high carb you're only getting 3500 calories to fuel energy.
If you're taking in less that 50% of carbs as your total caloric intake on a higher fat diet the body will begin depending more and more on ketones and free fatty acids as it's fuel source.
A vegan diet is sustainable moreso if you get organic produce. No pesticides is key. when bugs get on some of the fruits and defecate they leave b vitamins and amino acids you can't get from fruits themselves. These benefits may be lost if you wash your fruits.
Taking in lots of water with meals or within 2 hours of meals can cause water to push food further down the digestive tract so it never digests into calories. This causes some of the food not to be converted into usable fuel.
I feel you can rely on a high fat, moderate carb diet as long as you consume more carbs during high intensity activities or activity days. With this you can still acheive optimal performance.
I've mapped out a VO2Max chart that shows how much of a percentage of fuel you're using for various activities. Depending on what you're doing a certain percentage of energy is burned as fat and a certain percentage is burned as carbohydrate. This chart clearly illustrates when you need to consume more carbs. There is a limit to your anaerobic performance when carbs aren't there and so you really can't go at even a moderate intensity. In other words your performance will be hindered by 80% or more without carbs during moderate or high intensity activities. However, You need some fat even during these activites.
I've read it's better to eat your food slowly. It's best to only consume 8 oz of solid mass every 8 minutes therefore you want to eat your food slow. I wonder if eating more than that amount causes some of the foods to be pushed down further into the digestion tract causing it to not be metabolized into fuel.
Consume food every 15 minutes, not 8 minutes as I previously mentioned.
Did you have many problems, especially digestive distress when you first transitioned to a high fruit diet?
How long did it take you to adjust?
Does the high amount of fiber you are eating cause a high frequency of bowel movements?
Have you known any people who did not do well on this diet?
Mark, great to hear from you too man. Glad to see you are breaking free from the paleo ideology.
Also keep in mind that those guys are extreme athletes well into their later years.
Don Wildman does "The Circuit", then bikes for an hour or two after. He competes in triathalons, snowboards, surfs…whatever he wants…at like 77 yo.
Bob Delmontique… "At 85 years of age, Bob Delmonteque runs marathons, cycles 120 miles, and bench presses over 250 pounds. "
And I heard that Jack LaLanne exercises too, LOL! ;-)
Just confirming what you already know!
Hey JT or Matt,
I'm intrigued by this high carb approach (fruit, rice, and sweet potatoes) but when it comes down to implementing, I'm not sure what to do with protein. Just thinking about it, I think a lower protein amount makes sense. In your experience, for a person that exercises on most days (strength movements included), do you think a protein amount of 10-15% would be too low? I think the Kitavin ratios of about 70% carbs, 20% fat, and 10% protein might not be a bad idea. I just don't think one would have access to a ton of fish or game on a consistent basis. On 3,000 calories a day at 10%, that's still 75g of protein (~12 oz of salmon). Just airing out some thoughts. Thanks
"I mostly mean not at the same meal. I think http://www.jayrobb.com gives a pretty good idea of how to eat fruit to get the benefits without the drawbacks. "
Matt, I visited that site and after watching the videoclip that is played when visiting the page, all I really wanna do is punch that guy…in the face!
I honestly don't know what to say about that, except that the video is ultra-cheap, ultra-dumb and that guy is like the biggest wanna-be Tony Stark I've ever seen. Well whatever, I'm still gonna plow through that crap to see what exactly he recommends in terms of fruit.
Dear Lord, madMUHHH, I agree with you 100%. That was arrogant and annoying all wrapped up in one. Punch him once for me too, LOL!
My bad. Yes, Jay Robb is a tool. That video is pretty new. He used to be a little more mellow. He recommends doing a fruit "flush" for 3 days.
He is a carb cycler that basically is a food combiner – eating both carbs and fats almost daily but never together in sufficient quantity.
Punch him in the face! (spoken out loud with Nacho Libre accent)
I don't think protein is a concern. If you are really looking to build mass, I would think a little more protein and your highest calorie load should come post-resistance exercise. The rest of the time, no need to give it much thought.
Thanks Matt. I'm not looking for building mass, just leaning out. I spent most of high school and early college building mass for football so I'm happy with what I have. I'm more interested in getting some good strength to bodyweight ratios, primarily by getting under 10% body fat first. I think playing with Martin's IF approach could be a good combo.
Ahh, the strength to bodyweight ratio – the ultimate monitor of well-balanced fitness.
There are many keys to Martin's program, the primary one being that leaning out is something that is just as dependent on building muscle as it is losing fat. So you're not losing fat 7 days per week, but losing fat on your off days and building muscle on your workout days. I don't think, from a practicality and time efficiency standpoint, anything can compare with Leangains.
The last couple of posts have been great Matt. Been on a digital hiatus for the last few weeks, but it feels good to get my 180D fix!
All of this punching in the face and anger. Must be the sugar!
So while on vacation I was eating lots of bananas, OJ, a little cheese, coconut, pho, ramen, various other fruits, with lots of exposure to sun. The first day I made the mistake of not eating enough calories, but didn't make that mistake again, and subsequently felt great.
Energy was great, elimination was wonderful, mode was stable, etc.
Two things that I have gleaned (which makes this post very timely for me) since my transition from a high fat/protein diet, is how unbelievably important the calorie is in restoring and sustaining health (just the calorie itself), and also how little protein really is required.
I am not going to change my diet drastically because this experience (my wife mentioned that I will probably die with potato in my mouth) but I am going to reevaluate the "need" for a protein at every meal.
I agree with JT on the white rice, if you enjoy it eat it. As long as you are not just eating rice. I hate brown rice, so I don't eat it.
Matt what constitutes a "fruit meal"? All fruit?
For you sugar lovers, your position is one of displacement? Meaning if you displace nutritious wholesome foods with sugar you have problems, but if you just add sugar to a "good" diet then your good?
You build muscle and lose fat while you sleep and/or are chillin on the couch.
Mark what does 10% body fat look like?
Matt, it's a testament to your open-mindedness that you're willing to read a book like 80-10-10. I was interested in the diet for a while, because many of the proponents' claims make a lot of sense – and there's no denying that Freelee and several others are great adverts for that way of eating, as she looks amazing and evidently is brimming with energy and vitality.
I'm not sure about the long-term viability of veganism though. As has been pointed out, no animals are truly vegan, as even primates whose diets are fruit-based consume bugs. Fruitarians and raw vegans conveniently brush this off because the bugs apparently don't constitute a large caloric percentage of their diet. But even a tiny amount of animal food could be contributing vital nutrients. Freelee, if you come back – what do you have to say about that?
Actually I am going to try a low-fat, high-carb, adequate-calorie approach from now on, except it won't be high-fruit, as I seem to be mildly fructose intolerant and can't afford to basically live on fruit anyway. Instead I'm going to get most of my calories from gluten-free starches. Matt, have you heard of John McDougall? A low-fat, starch-based, whole food diet is exactly what he recommends, and many people claim to have great success with that. (Oh wait…was that what your FUDA diet was?) Obviously his conclusions on "deadly" saturated fat and cholesterol are wrong, but he could be right in that those things don't combine so well with a high-carb diet.
I've seen several people quote Kwasniewski when he says that the worst diet is one high in both fat and carbs. The diet he propounds is of course ultra high-fat and low-carb, but he admits that high-carb diets can be healthy as long as they are low-fat. Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but I don't recall – are there many/any traditional peoples that ate/eat a roughly equal amount of fat & carbs in good health?
Yes I know McDougall and others with more cooked starches like Fuhrman. But Furhman is into low-calorie eating, and I found it almost impossible to get the kind of calories you need on Furhman's diet. For me, it's just too damn hard to get enough calories on a low-fat diet if fruit isn't a mainstay.
You might find, as you reduce fat intake, that your fructose intolerance goes away.
A lot of traditional cultures ate high fat and high carbohydrate. See my Layla posts for a good example. There were also the Swiss and Polynesians. Seems most starch-based diets leaned towards heavier fat intakes.
I think Kwasniewski has experienced that hypometabolic people couldn't eat carbs and fat together, which is true, and why there are 2 competing restricted diets getting similar results. However, neither seems capable of fixing the root problem, which is low mitochondrial action. I've always been keened in on going above and beyond what either approach offers.
It's not the sugar man. I swear if you say that one more time I'll punch you in the face!
Yes, the calorie is of great importance, one great thing I'm glad to have stumbled upon in my research.
By fruit meals I mean only fruit, yes. Similar to what Freelee and the "bunch" would call a meal. It's quite amazing to me that once I hit a certain quota, I can go 5 or 6 hours without even thinking about food despite eating only a meal of bananas, or mangos, melon, and fresh orange juice – even if I'm out and hiking pretty hard.
Note once more that Furhman recommends 2-3 pieces of fruit for breakfast, and advocates being really hungry before eating.
These guys eat 15 pieces of fruit for breakfast, sometimes more.
There's a huge fundamental difference between the two.
While Martin's level of leanness would be the ultimate goal:
My first goal is around something like this (also pulled from Martin's site):
I don't think I'm too far away from my first goal, probably about 20 pounds which would put me at 190. An extra 10 from there might get me to Martin's level of leanness. It will be a long journey but for the past couple of days I have eaten high carb, natural foods, at about 2,350 calories. I am very satisfied and don't feel like I'm missing out on anything. My goal is about 3,000 calories so I have some more room to go to keep from being underfed, especially with intensity of my workouts. Last time I did Insanity, I stopped in week 2 because I stupidly tried to do low-carb at the same time. Hopefully this time around goes better. Good feedback Nathan, it helps.
This is so interesting since I've eaten raw vegan/high fruit in the past.
I've been to numerous gatherings/retreats and observed the obnoxious/arrogant Doug Grahm….unless he's calmed down in the past 10 years.
It will be interesting to see how these peop do in old age. That's assuming they or I get there.
Most of the raw gurus have not made it (Frye, Shelton?).
Jack Lalane did not always eat the way he does now. I remember the old days when he consumed liver, whole eggs.
His diet has changed although consuming fresh juice has been a constant. Also a mixed diet.
The SDA diet has changed as well. The vegetarians eat a lot more starch and have gained fat. But the elders who actually grew up on those canned, fake meats, (soy?) have done quite well.
I get pts who are really old (100 or close) who fit this category.
For me, I felt great w fruit for breakfast but as I aged, the sugar rush and brain fog was really uncomfortable.
Then there came the almost painful hunger.
I was really! cold in the cooler parts of the year.
Currently, I am adding more to my low carb eating and not obsessing.
It seems to be working. I still love raw produce and don't do so well on lots of cooked veg.
Oh, and about that candida; Raw fooders don't keep anything in the intestines long enough for bacterial overgrowth.
You don't want to be at one of these gatherings w only one bathroom….unless it is in the forest.
Love you, Matt. Thanks.
"Yes, the calorie is of great importance, one great thing I'm glad to have stumbled upon in my research."
Matt my understanding of the importance of the calorie has been definitely influenced by you man, and for that I thank you.
Oh before I forget, Matt are you going to write a revision to your backpacking book, with a strong focus on nutrition? LOL! Sort of kidding, but maybe not a bad little niche market.
Mark I am on the other end of the spectrum man. On low carb I became "very" lean, you know veins on the abdomen. With that being said I also was wasting away and was a scrawny little bitch at a whopping 6' 158lbs. This was right before I went into the hospital for 8 days for an intestinal distress of some sort. Still a mystery. Ahh I have such love for low carb "paleo".
Mark good luck with your goal.
You really need to get out of the mental prison of paleo ideology. Who cares if people in the past might or might not have had limited access to to big game or fish. Just because people in the past did it doesn't mean it is or isn't optimal for them or us.
You think that most cultures with high starch diets leaned towards heavier fat intakes? I don't think this is true. What about all of Asia and their high starch lowfat diets? Pima indians high starch, peruvian indians and all the potatoes, amazonian indians with mostly just manioc. These are all very high starch diets that are low fat.
But, who cares, there is no reason to think that just because it was a "traditional" diet that it is optimal. They ate whatever they could to survive, not because it was the most healthy.
Matt, how many days have you been on the all fruit diet? Did you have uncomfortable symptoms?
If the fruit were raising your uric acid levels you might have some headaches, extreme fatigue especially in your legs when going up a flight of stairs, and at night you might even get some joint pain as it settles in your tissue. Another way to tell if your serum uric acid levels are up is, since it affects circulation, your lips might have a bluish tint to them and if you press on a fleshy part of your body for a couple of seconds, when you lift your finger it would take some extended time for the white to go away and the pink to return. One other thing that excess uric acid causes it puffiness in the eyelids, both upper and lower.
I still don't believe that the fruit is the root cause of raised uric acid levels, but that it causes uric acid stores to be released from the tissue into the blood. Hopefully at that point, it would leave the body through the urine, and after who knows how long when your body is cleared out, your levels would no longer rise. I am looking forward to your results.
Matt Stone: Experiment No.??
Nice post, Matt. The open-mindedness of this blog is unparalleled. It makes me happy to come here and be regularly challenged to refine my assumptions (or discard them completely) and to reconcile strange new truths with what I think I already know.
A few observations on my own experience with fruit in the last year:
Last summer I ate a lot of fruit, nuts, and meat (without discomfort), while going very light on starch and vegetables, and by August, my face was ORANGE. Heading into winter, as I continued to eat a lot of meat but greatly reduced my fruit and nut consumption, my face went back to a normal color. I don't know for sure what caused the orange face, but I wonder if it was the high fructose/PUFA/and possibly protein combination. It will be interesting to see what happens this summer, as I expect my fat, vegetable, and starch consumption to be higher than last year, but with less meat, hardly any nuts (so low PUFA), and a much more moderate fruit intake.
Also, sometimes when I eat strawberries or cherries, and actually certain nuts too (separate from the fruit), I get an uncomfortable but not exactly painful sensation within the back of my abdomen between my spine and right shoulder blade. I want to say it almost feels like an organ is swelling, or like a mild allergic reaction, but I'm not really sure. It can last up to 30 minutes. Doesn't happen too often, though. Has anyone else experienced anything similar with these foods, or other fruit?
Also, Matt, why do you think fruit is better for athletic performance than high fat plus high starch? It seems easier to consume both more calories and more carbs following the latter approach.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but it is about combining fruit with fat. Avocados are a fruit, but they have a high fat content. Or is it more the fructose and the sugars that we are worried about?
Glad you made this post. Solid info, but I think one of the key aspects of 811 diet is the amount of protein. Have you you read any of the studies on Low-Protein diets and Diet induced thermogenesis?
"The extent to which low-protein diets could affect
energetic efficiency was not fully recognized until
Miller and Payne used two weanling pigs to compare
the effects of restricting protein intake on the
energy cost of weight maintenance with restricting
energy intake. In this rather bizarre experiment, one
pig was allowed to eat ad libitum a diet with a protein
concentration so low that however much it ate it could
only take in sufficient protein to meet its maintenance
requirement, which meant that growth was impossible.
By contrast, the high-protein pig was fed a
standard, high-protein weaning diet that would normally
produce rapid growth if fed ad libitum. However,
this pig's food intake was restricted such that the
animal could only just maintain weight?i.e. growth
was limited by energy. As a result of this dietary
manipulation, the low-protein pig was found to
require almost 5-times more energy to maintain the
same body weight as the high-protein pig. It was not
possible to carry out a proper energy balance, but it is
quite obvious from the results shown in Table 4 that if
the low-protein pig had not converted most of the
extra energy it consumed to heat, it would have
deposited an amount of fat almost equivalent to its entire body weight
– that is as much fat as there was pig!"
Could be why human breast milk is low in protein. So a baby can consume more to obtain the most amount of nutrients without becoming grossly fat.
Nice contribution. I notice that raw vegans advocate spending a lot of time outdoors. Perhaps this stems from their alterior motives… oh wait, "posterior" motives!
I do think that full-throttle, high-fruit vegan is not a safe bet. Even on Graham's approach, most of his devotees are pretty damn emaciated. I was sad to see an old friend of mine (yoga teacher), Thomas Radtke, who used to be built like an NBA basketball player and is now Graham's yoga guy looking borderline Auschwitz now.
I still maintain that an approach like this is probably an excellent way to restore health in cleanse format. It's when people try to force themselves to do this day in and day out for life that the probability of success starts to fade.
Ha ha! That backpacking book is almost worth a read because I throw out fat causes heart disease propaganda and everything. Ah, my early years. Mr. Nutrition Know it All! I crack me up.
I'm not fruit-only (or raw vegan with greens n' stuff), and if I were to go fruit only I would only do it for a short while. Although, if I can do it without being ravenous and losing significant amounts of lean body mass while hiking I may be quite fruity this summer.
You should check out the link to Richard Johnson's youtube video above. In part 1 he already gets into the difference between refined fructose and fructose in fruit. Seems that a diet rich in fruit and one totally sugar free BOTH reduced uric acid equally, while refined sugar raised it.
Also, the cameraman guy's uric acid levels are very low, even eating 70 bananas per day.
JT hits it outta the park with this one…
"But, who cares, there is no reason to think that just because it was a "traditional" diet that it is optimal. They ate whatever they could to survive, not because it was the most healthy."
Had that Oompa Loompa look going eh? Sweet! Very strange indeed. I have heard of people having problems with strawberries and cherries. These seem to be the most allergy-inducing fruits – along with mango. I have stomach pain with cherries typically. It could have something to do with cherries and uric acid excretion. Maybe you're feeling something in the kidneys there? I dunno.
I tried starch n' fat last year. Not bad. Perhaps I'll do a little performance compare and contrast once I'm back in full shape.
Yes – about combining fruit with fat, and how isolating fruit and fat yields very different results. The post in general is about fat vs. fruit in a duel to see which can provide better athletic performance.
Nice. Very interesting indeed. That certainly could play a part. I think to gain fat or muscle you have to trigger anabolic hormones to do so, and keeping protein low probably blunts anabolism – whether storing fat or muscle. Add lots of protein to 1,000 grams of carbs per day and you've got yourself an excellent Sumo diet.
I just watched the video. It's very convincing! I did raw vegan, fruit and nuts, a little over a year ago. I felt great the first two weeks when I was eating mostly fruit, but then I started to crave protein and added in nuts and seeds. I started to get terrible headaches. I became very weak and lost 10 pounds in 30 days, putting me at 100#, very skinny. I quit because of the frequent headaches and weakness. I now wonder, though, what would have happenned if I would have stuck with it a little longer. I am working on getting up the courage to try it again. This time I might use coconut oil as my fat, though, instead of nuts and seeds. I'm glad Matt is going first. I'll be watching. Anyone else trying it 100%?
@Mike Jones –
Were you consuming much beta carotene? I know several people that turn orange when they eat too much sweet potatoes and/or carrots.
If you feel you are at your preferred weight and wish to lean out, I would recommend something like what I did. Eat 3 meals a day and space them around 6 hours apart, eating around your body weight in grams of protein and about 90% of the rest of your calories from carbs. It worked great for me(got the most vascular I have ever been) but I am trying to add more muscle mass right now.
I don't think so, unless watermelon is high in beta carotene. I did eat a lot of those. At some point I was also eating a spoonful of palm oil every couple days for the vitamin E. Palm oil also happens to be high in carotenes, but I only went through one 16 ounce jar, so I don't think that should have been a problem.
Interestingly, I did eat a lot of carotenes in the winter (mostly from carrots and winter squash) and had no orange face then.
Take a look at a population of thriving low fat raw vegans here.
I just watched Dr Richard Johnstone's video, and although he says that fructose from HFCS is more damaging than fruit, he also recommends eating only small amounts of fruit saying that if you go over a certain amount you will end up with the same problem as when eating HFCS. If what he is saying is true, all frugivores would have uric acid diseases. Also, I thought it was strange that nowhere on the video or in an article that I read about his research does he mention cutting out or limiting purines. He even is looking into using gout meds!!!! for obesity. Something seems fishy.
Hey Matt I can't see exactly if you have replied to my comment or not?
Hi JT :-)
Did you have many problems, especially digestive distress when you first transitioned to a high fruit diet?
– I wouldn't call it "digestive distress", more like monumental clean out! Definitely a positive experience for me. As Matt has pointed out -When we eat high fibre fruit on top of no fibre foods like meat and dairy then their will definitely be an "explosive" meeting for a few days while the body (with the fruits help) rids it's self of the toxic animal products. It's all over when the junk is out.
How long did it take you to adjust?
– Hmm well really only a few weeks at most, my body was finally in celebration mode!
Does the high amount of fiber you are eating cause a high frequency of bowel movements?
– In the first weeks on the diet, I was probably having a BM around 4 times a day. Now days it's usually 2 a day.
Have you known any people who did not do well on this diet?
-No the ones who say they haven't are ALWAYS doing it wrong, most haven't even read the book and claim to have done the diet. If we want to find a destination it's a good idea to use a map. 811 is that Map.
Lorelei aka Hawaiigirl said…
"One of my favorite things that put veganism in perspective – even cows aren't vegan. They eat a fair number of bugs with their grass. "
– so what do you call a person who does not intentionally eat animals or their products?
People there is absolutely no problem with insulin levels on this lifestyle! I would be suffering CFS if that was the case.
Whenever we eat or drink, our blood-sugar levels rise, which in turn results in the pancreas producing a hormone called insulin.
Every cell in the human body requires glucose. Insulin is needed to transport glucose from your blood to your cells and for the storage of fat in the fatty tissues.
Excess fat is the bloodstream is the big culprit because it clogs the insulin receptor site, which means the sugar can't get to it's destination – the cell. This causes high blood sugar levels after eating fruit. You have to eliminate the excess fat (animal products, oils) from the diet so that the insulin functions normally and delivers the sugar to your cells. Learn to combine nuts and seeds properly and this isn't a problem.
There was a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (vol. 66, p. 1264) by the department of biochemistry at the University of Sydney.
The study concluded that animal products raised insulin levels MUCH more than simple and complex carbohydrates.
The exact findings :
Beef raised insulin levels more than white pasta and that fish raised them more than whole-grain bread. When compared with rises in glucose levels, beef raised insulin levels 27 times higher than brown rice did!
Hey Betsy yes I'm doing it 100%, for years now.
What you described were classic under-eating symptoms.
It's important to remember that nuts aren't actually classified as a "protein" food, they are predominantely fat so when you say you were "craving protein" you were just craving calories and fat is a dense source of calories hence their appeal.
who is this richard johnstone character? Sounds like he doesn't understand basic physiology…Will have to check him out when I get time :)
I would think excess animal protein may cause spiking insulin but just getting the adequate amounts daily wouldn't cause any problems. Fat isn't the whole problem but the type of fat and how it's been heated. Store processed hamburger meat and hot dogs would be a problem because they are highly oxidized and full of carcinogens. I've read this also spikes insulin. Most Americans tend to eat excess animal meat in a sitting. You really don't want to go over 4 oz per a meal. I would think animal fats are fine, but most cooking oils are what cause problems.
Here's a good article on urination:
I am personally of the opinion that urine is ideal at a very light yellow color. If you're constantly peeing out clear urine that looks just like water I would think you're flushing out some nutrients from the body too.
Now you have the athletes and the medical journals that prove a low fat, high carb vegan diet best serves human health.
Be the change you want to see and hold up a bunch of bananas instead of a pigs head that you wouldnt even have killed in public yourself.
LOL. It will be hilarious if Matt now changes the top image to a photo of him holding up a bunch of bananas, just to appease the raw vegans ;)
Egg diets, milk diets, potato diets, banana diets, meat diets. And all of them seem to work miracles for various people. I guess the human body really can adapt to anything thrown at it. Just avoid the sodas, and work out a whole bunch if you want to look hot.
I see your post is about fat vs. fruit in relation to optimal athletic performance.
Well of course fruit will yield better results.
The body burns both carb and fat most of the time. Depleting your carb stores by consuming a low carb diet and/or consuming too few calories for an extended period, results in your body going into ketosis, which is not healthy nor sustainable.
As for fat, all plant foods contain adequate amounts of fats and only plants make the essential fatty acids that promote good health.
Glucose is the form of sugar that travels in your bloodstream to fuel the mitochondrial furnaces responsible for your brain power. Glucose is the only fuel normally used by brain cells. Because neurons cannot store glucose, they depend on the bloodstream to deliver a constant supply of this precious fuel.
Dr McDougall on carbohydrates:
Our biologic "sweet tooth"-why a diet of meat provides little satisfaction.
We are designed not only to efficiently burn carbohydrates but also to enjoy them.
Our Creator even designed our tongues and taste buds to selectively seek them out. At the tip of your tongue are the "sweet" taste buds, indicating that the sweet taste (found in carbohydrates) is the first one you want to experience.
In fact, anthropologists tell us that a "biologic sweet tooth" enabled early humans to know if a food was nutritious or poisonous. If a food didn't taste sweet at the tip of the tongue, they didn't eat it, and the body was protected.
Most people don't eat butter, mayonnaise, or sour cream unless they have a carbohydrate to go with it. In fact, unless you accompany your beef, bacon, and butter with carbohydrates, you will quickly lose your appetite for such foods. Incidentally, if you manage to stay on a high-fat, high-protein diet, you will lose some weight, but most people can't keep this type of eating up for long.
I was an 811 raw vegan for over two years. I was strict – following Doug Graham's guidelines. I ate in excess of 3000 fresh fruity cals a day, worked out, got the sleep and sunshine and percentage of cals from fresh greens that he recommends. I did NOT eat any salt or use ANY drugs of any kind, did NOT drink caffeine (only drink water or those 10 banana smoothies). I drank a gallon of water a day and made sure I was "pissing clear" as Harley says. I loved eating that much food – it was a lot of fun to eat more than anyone I knew.
I wanted it to work for me. But it didn't.
My hair and nails became extremely dry and brittle. I felt depressed all of the time, and my brain was in a deep fog. My hair fell out, at least 1/3 of it. I had chellitis at the corners of my lips. I had sores on one leg that would not heal. My inner ears started itching and burning. My heart started skipping beats, and I ended up in the hospital where they told me that I was killing myself.
I ended up posting some questions on Harley and Freelea's site, and was told by them I was "doing it wrong." They accused me of eating salt (never did in 2+ years), eating cooked foods (nope, not a bite touched my lips, and I didn't even eat any dehydrated "raw" foods, only fresh raw fruits and veggies in enough cals to fuel my 110 pound female body), not getting enough sunshine or sleep, you name it, they accused me of it. Harley especially was pretty harsh. It was as if neither he nor Freelea even read my posts. They just accused and accused in order to cover up that it wasn't working for someone. Hang around their site for a few months – you will see what I mean.
It's easy to toss out "well they MUST be using drugs or eating cooked foods or not eating enough calories because this works for EVERYONE and if it doesn't you are DOING IT WRONG." Heck, read Freelea's words in this thread. She says as much, that it ALWAYS works unless you are doing it wrong. Don't think so, babe.
Every person's body comes to the table with a different past, a different potential future. I no longer believe that most humans can subsist on a low fat, fruit-based, vegan diet.
I still eat a predominantly raw diet, but I have added pastured eggs, raw milk and cream, and locally-grown beef to my diet. I eat a LOT more fat – from ghee to coconut cream to animal fats. I still eat fruit, but only at one meal, by itself, a day. I still eat in excess of 3000 calories, which is why I love Matt Stone – you gotta eat if you are a human, it's one of our basic needs, to take in enough calories to fuel our furnace. That's one thing Freelea has right, but the rest of it? Not so much.
Today I look and feel fantastic. I am much older than Freelea, but I am slim, have great muscle tone, and my hair has grown back lush and thick.
I honor our place on this fine planet , our place as thinking, feeling animals who continuously try to map a better path. That's what we're doing here, at this site – examining what it means to be human.
Thanks for listening.
It seems that your experience is common when trying a restrictive diet that is only sustainable for a limited number of people. Just take a look at Charles Washingtons' site and all the Zero-Carb zombies blaming those who don't succeed that they can't possibly be doing the diet right because it is "God's gift to man" and is the only way to eat.
I also want to add that I am glad that 811 seems to work for some, and that they enjoy it. I'm not bashing the program. It didn't work for me, and I have read of so many others that it didn't work for, that I feel it is probably a small segment of the population who can live fully raw vegan without health issues.
I guess what I have discovered for myself is that the most important thing – for me, and probably for others – is to eat a LOT of healthy, whole foods. I don't believe that minimizing any of the macronutrients makes sense.
I don't eat any grains or legumes or vegetable oils or refined foods and sugars. But I do eat plenty of carbs, fats, and proteins. I feel best when I don't limit my intake. I like eating to my big appetite. It probably doesn't much matter what you eat, as long as it is real food, enough of it. Low carb, high fruit, paleo, raw, I don't think any of that matters.
Here's what this old lady has learned:
Eat Real Food. Lots of real food, the kinds of things humans have been eating for eons like fruits, veggies, meats, dairy. Don't limit yourself, eat, eat, eat! The food will make you want to run around and have fun!
Move around outside in the sunshine. Laugh a bunch. Don't take yourself too seriously. Find fun things to do.
You'll feel great, look great, and that smile you will carry will be genuine.
Freelea, I actually meant I was craving fat. My brain wasn't working right.
And whoops!!! on the doctors name: it's Dr Richard Johnson.
I had responded, but for some reason the comment didn't show up. Didn't notice until now. Doh!
When I say that Graham's evolutionary explanation for what constitutes the optimal human diet is "dumb," I literally mean that it is dumb. It is not intelligently explained, is not comprehensive, and leaves out key details and contradictions. It would probably take an entire book twice the length of 80/10/10 to actually formulate a decent argument on what the human organism is designed to eat. Some basic oversimplifications/contradictions include:
1) Graham states that we produce lots of salivary amylase, evidence that we should consume fruit. Actually, we produce more salivary amylase than other primates and suck at climbing trees in comparison as an adaptation for eating starch, not fruit. Perhaps this is why nearly every human population with access to starch cultivation or gathering eats starch as the primary staple of their diet, even when abundant fruit is surrounding them.
One good example is the Kitavans. They eat by instinct. No one told them what or how to eat. They are surrounded by unlimited amounts of fruit and eat mostly yams, fish, and coconut – with fruit NOT playing a starring role in their diet despite it being so abundant that it is left to rot. They actually use yams as a form of currency it is so highly revered.
2) Graham states that humans have a natural aversion to meat, blood, and guts. This may be true of modern humans, but isolated populations left to eat according to instinct have no social mores about this. Many cultures worshipped the liver of animals – a sign of great appreciation for the essential nutrients found in animal liver. Other societies drink blood, eat entrails, and were reported by explorers that they enjoyed these foods with great relish.
3) Graham states that a human baby loves sweet, ripe fruit – a sign that it is the food we were meant to eat. However, when left to instincts, a human baby will also eat raw meat, including organ meat, big hunks of butter, and cooked starch. No human baby, when given an unlimited selection of all those foods, would eat fruit and fruit only. Nor would any human at any age, and no human population eating according to their instincts was found to be frugivorous or anything close to it – whether living in the tropics or not.
Anyway, that is just a taste of what Graham does not account for in his "humans were meant to eat 95% of their calories from fruit" mantra.
Nice of you to stop by. True to form. Love it.
You are right that carbohydrates do not cause problems with blood sugar and insulin. That's one myth this blog loves obliterating.
This is a much more common outcome of attempting raw vegan. Even if there is some magic way to "do it right," the bottom line is that most people don't and end up in complete ruin like yourself. The failure rate on raw vegan is extremely high, even if there are occassional success stories. Glad you came back from la-la land to heal yourself, and rejoice in your humanness.
I've known a few people who consulted with Dougie in person, and gave his "map" their best shot. Their failures were legendary, to later be regained and restored eating the hell out of some cooked meat, fat, and starch.
I'm not doing a raw vegan experiment. While Doug's 80-10-10 can probably be used as a "cleanse," or a way to overcome specific health disorders, it is not sustainable or practical for 999 out of every 1000 people who try it. I'm just adding more fruit to my diet, displacing some of the fat and meat. It's great, but a few days at a time is about all I can stand.
As for Richard Johnson, he's not the Master of the Universe. He does has some interesting thoughts and has done some interesting research – as have many others. He is a long ass way from putting all of the pieces together. He does write extensively about high-purine foods in The Sugar Fix. He also gives another lecture series that you can find at the Fathead blog, in which he goes into more detail about purine-rich meats.
Young kids love fruit. But you will rarely hear them eating fruit and saying that "It's the best thing in the whole world" like these kids, eating according to instinct…
I didn't care for fruit, as a child. My mother always made up a bit fruit tray as an evening snack from the time that I was a baby and I always avoided it. It was only about a half-notch up from vegetables, in my mind. I always craved really calorie-dense foods as a kid (buttered bread, creamy mashed potatoes, meat, ice cream, chocolate, candy, etc.), which makes sense and is VERY typical of children. Anything that was watery and 'light' was a turn-off and something I had to endure, rather than enjoyed. I remember often picking off and discarding the fruit off an ice cream sundae or the pineapple off the 'Hawaiian' pizza. My mother always included a piece of fruit in my lunchbox and I always (embarrassingly) tossed it.
I like fruit now, though. Especially in-season, local fruit. :)
Bone marrow is great!
But you know what is even better? Bone marrow and….POTATOES!
Thanks Annabelle, and this makes sense for a young kid. Mom's milk is at least 50% fat mixed with lots of sweet lactose. Ice cream, french fries, macaroni and cheese, chocolate, chicken nuggets, burgers, and pizza therefore tend to be the favorites – all of which have a similar nutrition profile.
Problems arise when the foods are…
1) High in metabolism suppressors such as vegetable oil and soy
2) Low in nutrients
3) Low in indigestible matter to foster metabolism stimulation in the digestive tract
4) High in endocrine disruptors like highly-refined sugar or chemicals/additives
I'd like to think that those instincts are not out to kill us though, and if the above 4 items are addressed and mitochondrial activity increases, we can handle the fat-carb combo.
Heredity plays the biggest factor though, as mom and dad's metabolic state pre-determines whether we come into this world hypometabolic or not.
This is exactly what I have been thinking about lately… to eat fruit or not to eat fruit.
I still get toothaches and pains in my ears from eating fruit though..
Matt, you wrote:
"Dougie feels strongly that candida avoidance comes from restricting fat to at least 20% and preferably much lower as a percentage of calories as well as eating sufficient calories."
do you agree with that one? Would you say that if I limit my fat-intake, I should be able to eat fruit without any candida-related problems?
Yes. In fact, those with the most severe candida problems seems to be those on the highest fat diets. Even smelling a piece of fruit can make them yeasty.
I too have tooth pain, get red, cracked lips, and joint pain from eating fruit as part of a higher-fat diet (although this has improved since going low-PUFA).
With a lower fat intake, I have no problems. Note, Graham says this can take a couple weeks to improve.
I find it improves within 48 hours.
Why do you say that refined sugar is an endocrine disruptor? In what way, and why do you think this?
Why do you think that indigestible matter stimulates the metabolism?
I think Ray Peat has a writing somewhere with a similar point regarding candida. Something about it not getting enough sugar instead of too much lie most internet gurus believe.
Ohhh La La…
Where to start….
Well a lot of you know my journey into Raw Veganism nearly killed me..
And Doug Graham well I did his 80/10/10 diet for around 6 months also having telephone consultations with him in the process to make sure I was getting it right…
What happened for me was. I felt spaced out and hyper emotional the whole time. I spent most of it asleep or in a kinda stoned like stupor. My stomach became very painful and bloated.
I was having mood swings like a roller coaster.
Long term raw veganism caused my hair to fall out, my muscle tone to disapear, my moods to become dark and bleak and I suffered from depression most of the time I was on it apart from the first year. My teeth to get massive cavaties.
It's funny because I still have friends who are raw vegan, they swear by the lifestyle but they don't tell you the part about how they are cold all the time despite living in Hawaii, how they have teeth problems, how they have problems with sleeping…
I watched people bring up their kids on mainly fruit. One young girls teeth came thru black, rotted. After a few years her dad started to feed her some Raw Goat cheese. she went bonkers on it, craved it like a crazy women…
Other Raw vegan kids had growth issues and mental retardation..
Most of this isn't made public in the raw vegan movement. But for sure it happens…and at least a few of the kids I mention are kids of the leading raw foods advocates in the U.K…
No one ever says anything because they make alot of their money pushing themselves as raw food coaches or selling raw foods items…
I now eat some fruit, meats, eggs, goats cheese, coconut water, butter, veggies and some potatoes.. I have grown healthier, stronger and leaner.. I no longer had the eating disorder I had back in the day of raw veganism. I am more emotionally balanced these days and I hardly think about food until I am hungry.
Doug Graham is an arrogant hyperactive individual who recommends exercising 4 hours plus a day..
His body looks great but check out his skin.. Very old looking… Now some people have told me that due to being in the sun all day but I am in the sun all day and live in Hawaii and I have no sun damage..
Anyway that's my 2 cents!!!!!!!!!!
Melvin Page wrote extensively about refined sugar's unique ability to disrupt "body chemistry." It did so mainly by disrupting calcium to phosphorous ratios and sending blood glucose on more or a roller coaster ride – whereas other carbohdyrates did not have this tendency.
I don't think it's lack of sugar that causes candida flareups per se, but excess glucose in the blood.
Short-term, cutting either fat or carbs will reduce blood sugar, but as you know, I had a mission to eat both fat and carbs and lower blood sugar, and used whole foods overfeeding to do it.
But I do think whole foods overfeeding could be just as effective, if not more effective, on a 15% fat diet vs. a 40-50% diet like the one I used.
As for fiber and resistant starch, these ferment in the gut and produce butyric and propionic acid in the digestive tract – profound stimulators of mitochondrial activity and the primary fuel source of the digestive mucosa.
I knew you'd have a few things to say about this raw vegan, lucky to make it more than a couple years nonsense.
6 steady months of consults with Doug Graham himself eh? If you still can't "get it right" with that kind of effort, it might be a sign that a raw vegan diet, no matter how you do it, can be dangerous and detrimental to health.
Your experiences are typical of a raw vegan diet, and people should be aware of that.
Harley and Freelee and Doug Graham's response to a raw vegan diet is atypical.
Thanks again Pip. Read more about Pippa's raw vegan adventure in this post…
Regarding Candida, here is Ray Peat's view that I copied from Lita Lee's website.
Systemic candidiasis is a myth: According to Dr. Ray Peat, most of what people believe about candida is wrong, but candida can become a problem for sick people. IgA is the main type of antibody on surfaces and secretions and should protect against candidiasis. But IgA is deficient in hypothyroidism, so hypothyroid people have more susceptible membranes, and the yeasts thrive on sugar that can appear in the secretions in diabetes/stress, but they adhere to any cell with estradiol in it, thinking they have found a fertile yeast. Eating sugar and fruit is helpful, rather than harmful as the cultists say, because well nourished yeasts aren't harmful in the intestine. But starved yeasts need sugar and so they project invasive filaments into the intestinal wall, and can get into the blood stream, at which point ? if they aren't quickly destroyed by white blood cells ? they can grow and quickly kill the person. In a typical year, a few people in the world get invasive candida and quickly die, but millions of Americans will insist that they ?have candida in the bloodstream. Eating sugar (fruits, fruit juices) lowers cortisol, keeping the white cells working, helps to increase thyroid, and keeps the yeast from becoming invasive. PUFA (polyunsaturated fatty acids or omega-3 and -6 oils) are yeast stimulants, unlike saturated fats. The white film on grapes is a layer of yeast cells, that live there because of the PUFA in the waxy surface of the grape. (Source: Dr. Ray Peat; http://www.raypeat.com)
Thanks JT, but I suspect that sugar's unique impact on leptin and leptin sensitivity is more responsible for the chain of events leading to hypometabolism, impaired immunity, lowered IgA, and so on…
From googling leptin and IgA…
"The presence of hyperglycemia and high cortisol levels in ob/ob animals can also decrease the immune responses. However, previous experiments with food restriction showed that reduced plasma levels of cortisol and glucose did not reverse the immune defects in ob/ob mice, whereas leptin replacement restored a normal immune response in ob/ob mice (7, 8). In addition, humans with congenital leptin deficiencies secondary to mutations in the ob gene exhibit low total T cell counts, impaired cell-mediated immune responses, and an increased rate of infections in the absence of hypercortisolemia and hyperglycemia (30, 31). Taken together, these findings in rodents and humans suggest that leptin deficiency is directly responsible for the immune abnormalities in ob/ob mice."
Considering that fructose does not stimulate leptin, and potentially decreases leptin sensitivity – particularly on behalf of fructose found in refined sugars like Peat's beloved sucrose, this would explain why most candida protocols that favor starches over sugars perform better, and why fruit, on a high-fat diet, is the biggest aggravator of candida along with refined sugars.
@Matt, I should have checked Dr Johnson's information better before I spoke. I'll look for his other articles. And what are you eating besides fruit?
@Brian H, how are you feeling on two fruit meals a day?
Does anyone know, do people who are receiving chemo get massive candida problems because of the chemo destroying their immune system?
And Matt, doh is spelled duh.
Good post Matt.
However now my head is spinning and weight is till creeping up and I just need a structured way to lose the fat.
I've tried HED for the past few months and body temps are up, my hands are warm all the time (which is a big change from usual) my hair and nails are growing faster :-)
But if only I could lose the weight :-(
That's a very clever theory, but is there actual evidence to support it, or is it just Ray Peat playing an inventive game of idea association?
I developed tinea versicolor (splotches on the skin due to fungal overgrowth) while eating an insanely high-sugar diet that was quite low in fat. Perhaps it's in an entirely different category from candida infection, but I kind of doubt it.
On the other hand, my high-sugar years were also high-adrenaline, so maybe there really wasn't enough sugar to go around? Who knows, but all else being equal, I seriously doubt that consuming still more sugar would have prevented the problem.
My theory about candida is that wherever there is uric acid hanging around, candida microbes will proliferate. Get out the uric acid, get rid of the candida.
It would be interesting if we could ask Peat directly about it. I still think you should do an interview with him as one of your blog posts. His beliefs are truly 180 degrees different from mainstream nutrition advice, nobody else really claims that a high sugar and saturated fat diet is best.
Maybe the problems associated with sugar are due to high pufa consumption that usually accompanies it. He claims that pufas are yeast stimulants. What do you think about the yeast projecting invasive filaments into the intestinal walls when they don't get enough sugar? As you know, I am skeptical of the anti sugar crusaders and their message on the evils of sugar. My experience fits better with a Peatian view.
I don't know. You could check out his website or send him an email. He usually answers everyone and for free.
I am in the same boat as you. Confusion starting to set in, in a major way.
I have been following RRARF principles for several months now, struggling to get my temp over 97, and weight holding steady (good in that I am not gaining anymore despite being very consistently in the 4000-4500 calories per day range).
Now along comes this, and it almost seems like it is 180 degrees removed from 180 degrees removed in the first place! Wait, that is 360 degrees LOL. Seriously, it is correct for me to then conclude that high starch/high fat/adequate protein to get lean(er) and then a switch to this type of protocol which will allow me to maintain that leanness? I love fruit but am terrified to have any eating the way I do now. I also know, deep down, that you need carbs to build muscle. As I have posted here before when I chime in occasionally, health goals are followed very closely by physique goals as I do have very good genetics in that department. I recently dug out an old copy of a book called "Bodyfueling" by a Robyn Landis and her 70-15-15 protocol (approx) is not far off what Matt is discussing in this post.
Matt, I agree that it would be great if you can get an interview with Ray Peat. I think there should be more discussion as to whether or not sugar really is as problematic as we have been saying, or whether it is in fact PUFAs combined with sugar intake that cause problems. I'm quite convinced that my sugar cravings which seems to have just about disappeared was a result of being underweight and not eating enough. Now that I have gained weight back and my appetite has improved, I don't crave sugar like I used to.
Nobody really eats sucrose in isolation, it always comes with other things. When people eat "a lot of sweets" they are often referring to pastries or candy bars which contain white flour, vegetable oils, other chemicals, etc. Nobody really just eats bowls of pure sucrose.
And I think it's also important that Ray Peat does NOT recommend sucrose over natural fruits. I asked him about this and he believes fresh ripe fruits are best, but due to the poor quality of fruit in the US/Europe and the fact that it is not always available, sucrose can be used in its place.
Everybody gets hung up on the sugar and ice cream, but this is not taking into account the whole picture of his recommendations.
@Betsy: I've not yet started, this weekend is a bit busy I am eating a lot of meals at restaurants. I bought a blender today and will try to begin on Monday making two of my meals fruit-based by having a breakfast smoothie. Just to clarify, I mean fruit instead of starch, but still including protein and saturated fat.
Humans produce more amylase than primates because we cook foods and destroy the amylase content in those starch sources. Primates eat raw unripened fruit, which has amylase in it.
Glad you guys are confused. If I had one goal, it would be to make you guys think in great depth about the vast complexity of diet, nutrition, hormones, and health. I want to make you think because simplified theories are never neat, tidy, and flawless. Neat theories almost always fail people.
That's why this post came about, and why we are examining why this woman is having such apparently good results eating in a way that is totally foreign. Is it working? Is she screwing herself long-term? These are all important questions. We also get to see a sexy babe that eats 1,000 grams of carbohydrates per day. That's worth bringing onto this blog, especially considering she is not only lean doing so, but got lean doing so – dropping 28 pounds of pure body fat.
I think the biggest question is…
Would temps come up faster and do so without fat gain with carbohydrates maximized – (and no more fruit restriction) while allowing fat to be a minor player in the diet (say, 10-20% of calories)?
Would Kaizen have all the benefits without weight gain, but in fact weight loss eating to appetite?
Is a lower-fat diet really an optimal human diet – with all the negative associations with lowfat diets having to do with insufficient calorie intake?
HED is pretty amazing, but I want it to be better. I want it to be as efficient as possible. A question we must ask is, is it better to get extra calories in from butter, or from bananas?
This is a question worth asking. We all want the benefits of overfeeding – and we want to get it without any drawbacks – especially not declines in body composition which, at the end of the day, is the most important thing to a lot of people whether they care to admit it or not.
As for my own dietary adventures, I can tell you right now that the fruit meal thing will probably be short-lived. It will most likely be limited to 1 meal per day, or fruit will simply become part of my mixed meals – which will be very carb heavy. Tonight's dinner is 2 ears corn, 2 pounds of potatoes with 2T homemade ranch, 1/3 pound spinach in chicken broth, and a little fruit if I'm still hungry. I've already put away 7 mangos, 11 Diggler-sized bananas, a little OJ, and a couple pounds of watermelon.
Good comment Matt. I love thinking about this stuff. So it looks like from your meals that you're not worried about protein intake? That's the one part that I'm still curious about. I like the high carb/low fat all natural food approach but I don't know how much protein to throw in. 1 g/lb/bdwt or is 0.5 ok. So many bodybuilders swear by high protein it seems but I don't want to base my diet on them, although Martin Berkhan really likes a lot of protein. By the way, getting to 3,000 calories a day without eating a lot of added fat or tons of eggs is hard to do. I keep on falling around 2,350 or so.
There's a couple arguments for and against high carb intakes for health and performance. Where performance is concerned you absolutely need carbs for prolonged endurance activities. Some say you need to eat high carb on a daily basis in order for you body to maintain a higher muscle/liver glycogen storage for endurance events. I disagree because from what I looked at your body's ability to store carbs is based on your current level of athletic performance, not your daily carb intake. When you go at a higher intensity over many months you body develops the capacity to store more carbs at a time. A person who isn't physically active can only store half the amount of carbs at best even on a high carb diet. If it's a prolonged endurance activity you need to practice it on a weekly basis otherwise your body and your heart won't be able to preform at optimal levels.
There's a couple reasons why a person would not want to consume higher carb everyday. Carbohydrate sources are a lot more expensive than fat sources. There's nutrients you can only get from fatty foods like eggs, fermented codliver oil, raw milk, and redmeat. Other animal sources to consider that are rich in nutrients are organ meats and bone broth. Raw milk and bone broth are rich in minerals and electrolytes. Gelatin from bone broth has been found to be twice as effective as glucosamine chondroiten w/ msm in rebuilding joints and cartilage. Vitamins A, D, and K2 are found in the needed quantities with raw milk and fermented codliver oil. The fat soluble vitamins, obviously only found in fat, are crucial for mineral placement and other types of repair for the body. It would be very difficult to get all the necessary minerals from a low fat or vegan diet. The fatty portion of milk helps those minerals digest. There are claims that defatted milk causes calcification in the wrong parts of the body. Can't say if you were to eat enough carrots if the beta carotene would convert into enough vitamin a for the body. You can get vitamin D from the sun or some mushrooms. However, mushrooms can be expensive. The only vegan food that has vitamin k2 in it is natto. However, the k2 popularly known as activator X may have been mk4, whereas the k2 in natto is mk7. This may not have the same qualities that are necessary for health.
Fat also supplies more than 3X more ATP than carbs and you may feel more energy throughout the day with a higher fat intake. Maybe, maybe not. The brain can adapt to function off of free fatty acids for the most part in the absence of carbs in just a few weeks of high fat low carb. The body converts to relying on free fatty acids rather than ketones as it's primary fuel source on a high fat diet after 3 weeks. After three months you may not produce any ketones as long as you consume 60-150g of carbs a day.
An argument bodybuilders and other athletes have is that high carb intake has anabolic effects as it spikes insulin. Can't say if this is true. What I can say is that taking in enough calories is what's most important for performance, health, and growth. Unlike high endurance activities which are anaerobic bodybuilding is a highly aerobic activity. Meaning it depends on burning energy that has oxygen in it. Fat is more so utilized for aerobic activities whereas carbs are utilized for anaerobic activities. You can have great performance on a high fat diet during weight lifting but not so with cycling or running. You would still need your intake at 50/50 carb to fat during weightlifting.
The insulin spike of refined sugars may play a part in muscle building anabolism. One effective form of anabolic steroids is pure insulin. Many prisoners probably consumed a lot of refined carbs because they are cheap and there may be claims it led to their violent behavior. Many prisoners are very strong and some of the strength gains may be attributed to refined carbohydrates. There was a test done with gorillas where they were fed ripened bananas. They never eat ripened bananas. What resulted was they were killing each other and were hyperactive. Once they stopped consuming the ripened bananas they went back to their normal behavior.
Just incase my earlier statement was confusing I meant that amylase enzymes are destroyed when a starch source is cooked. Therefore we produce our own amylase enzymes when we consume cooked starches.
Other vitamins and minerals I did not mention that would be deficient in a vegan/high carb diet would be the b-vitamins and zinc. Primarily vitamin b12 of the b-vitamins. The amino acid carnosine would also be absent. Sources of complete proteins would be pea, soy, and hemp. Soy would need to be fermented into natto to destroy all the antinutrients. It's difficult to get enough protein from hemp and pea so all I could think of is getting it into isolated protein powder. Depending on body weight a person would need between 50 to 120 grams of protein a day. Many vegans love chlorella but you won't eat it in high enough quantities to get that much protein from it. Bee Pollen is another great source of protein. I don't think peanuts, rice, or beans contain complete amino acid profiles which are required for muscle building and maintenance.
Vegan sources of b12 only offer and analogue of it and not the full spectrum of what composes b12 for it to be absorb able to the human body. This form of b12 in higher quantities may even hinder absorption of animal based b12 sources. Therefore even vegan b12 supplementation would not give the right type of b12. However, the fecal matter left from insects on organic produce may give these vegans some of these needed nutrients.
ok I haven't read any of the comments because there is far too many. So I will just go off on my own tangent.
Criteria for determining our natural diet:
* Can the food be eaten in its natural state? Is the food palatable, that is delectable or delicious? Can it be eaten with keen relish in its natural state without salt?
A sweet lush mango is.
* Does the food introduce harmful toxic substances into our digestive system?
* Is the food easy on digestion and assimilation?
* Does the food contribute a broad range of nutrients? Does the food possess great biological value for us?
Yes fruits and greens does.
* Is the food easily attainable and doesn't require the risk of death or unnecessary energy expenditure?
* Does the consumption of the food contribute to the destruction of the planet and its inhabitants?
Eat fruit with a clear conscience.
The best sources of EFA's come from fruits and greens. The ratio of omega 3's and 6's are their ratio in your diet. 811 balances this.
ok on to candida…
Candida is a type of yeast this is naturally present, at all times, on the skin and mucus membranes of the human body. It is find primarily in the mouth, intestines and vagina. An overgrowth of candida can be present without any signs or symptoms of an oral, intestinal or vaginal infection.
The primary cause of candidiasis…
It is the role of insulin to usher sugars out of the bloodstream and deliver them to the cells. This process is greatly impeded by the presence of fats in the blood. When a high fat diet is consumed, sugars remain too long in the blood. Since candida feeds on sugars, it then multiplies nearly as quickly as a single bacterium, at the rate 16,777 times in just 24hours.
There are also other factors that may contribute to a candida overgrowth….
Enervation and toxicity
Despite its reputation to the contrary, sugar intake is NOT the cause of candida problems. If a person consumes more sugar than needed the sugars will simply be removed from the bloodstream by the action of insulin (unless a high fat diet is eaten).
Removing fruit from the diet provides no cure for candidiasis – this starves the body's cells of their most needed source of fuel, carbohydrates, resulting in malnutrition and a deterioration in health.
When it comes to nutrients…
More is NOT better, get it?
Nutrients are found in the body in specific quantitative relationships to other nutrients. Calcium for example, is present in a 2:1 relationship with phosphorus. Consuming more of a specific nutrient, or consistently eating foods that are overly high in that nutrient, will inevitably lead to an imbalance. We thrive when our nutritional ratio's are just right.
When it comes to nutrients too much is just as much of a problem as too little. The optimum foods for us, nutritionally, are those foods whose nutrient content most closely mimic our nutrient needs. In every category of nutrition, fruits come closest to meeting those needs.
The nutrient losses associated with cooking are so extreme as to be unnecessary to list here in this short space. Proteins, fats and carbohydrates all degrade under the heat of cooking into toxic matter. Enxymes, co-enzymes and most vitamins are destroyed by heat. Antioxidants, phytonutrients and minerals are damaged as is fibre. Even water is lost in the cooking process, try to juice a piece of bread.
Nutritionally there are no benefits to cooking wholesome raw foods.
Simplicity is the key to optimal digestion….
Good digestion is critical to ideal nutrition. We can only absorb and assimilate that which we can digest. Simplicity at each mealtime best facilitates optimum digestion. Reduction of the number of courses in the meal, as well as the number of ingredients in each dish, are both conducive to good digestion.
You can't get epa or dha from plant based sources. Some claim you need some amount of these fatty acids in your diet daily.
You definitely want macadamia nuts for it's palmetoleic acid content. This omega 7 amino acid is absent in all other plant sources except seabuckthorn berries but it's a very small amount contained within. Black currant and other sources contain GLA. Coconut would be good if you decide you want more fat in the diet. With this higher omega 6 intake you'd want to balance it out with some ground flaxseeds added in.
Seeing this blog is about Fat Vs Fruit…
Nutritionists from every arena agree that we need to lower our fat consumption. Why is this so difficult?
It is because we have been mistakenly been led to believe that complex carbs (starches) are the best carbohydrates for us, that they are the only carbs available and that fruit is not a "sustaining" of "filling" food.
This simply is not so. Fruits are an excellent source of simple carbohydrates . The problem occurs when we try to eat our complex carbs and find out that they are exceptionally bland. When we add fat to make them tolerable, we defeat the purpose. When we add sugar, salt, pepper, spices and artificial flavours, the potential health value of the food deteriorates dramatically.
A diet comprising of 30% or more fat has been linked to many different health concerns including, but not limited to: diabetes, candida, chronic fatigue, cancer and heart disease. We know the excess raw fats are somewhat less harmful that their cooked counterparts and that plant fats in excess are somewhat less harmful than over-consumption of animal fats. Still, too much fat is too much fat. If too much fat is unhealthy for us, it doesn't really matter what kind of fat, but how much of it, that we are consuming.
To obtain sufficient essential fatty acids we must eat a minimum of three percent of our calories as fat. It is almost impossible to eat less than 3% fat, as most fruits contain close to that or more. 10% of our calories as fat is more than sufficient to meet all our needs, I regularly have 5% and feel the best when I do this.
So Daniel where does the elephant or the horse or the hippo get its dha or epa? Their bodies produced it of course.
Their physiology is different than our own. They have a bigger more complicated stomach structure so they way they metabolize food is much different. A good amount of plant based omega 3s can be converted to dha and epa. However, there are claims people still need the pure source from animal sources. Some people can't convert other omega 3s into dha or epa, but that may be due to a poor quality diet. Herbivores usually eat some insects as they're consuming their food and that may contain the epa/dha content they need.
I've followed Mary Enig and according to her information polyunsaturated fat intake should be in the range of 4% of total intake.
She stresses saturated fat intake from animals and teaches about the benefits of coconut fat.
Though what you have to say about polyunsaturated fat intake fits with Matt Stone and others who say you don't need that much of it. He looks at Kitavans as a group who have great health with their high carb, low fat, low protein intake. I myself look at the Muran Warriors habits but feel you can learn from both. The Kitavans take in more than 3% of fat as their total intake.
Here's a good article on the Kitavans. Their intake was 24% fat.
There's more information on the Kitavans in this book:
Hey with all due respect
Any reference to the Weston A Price Foundation as being a credible source of dietary information is seriously misguided.
Anyone promoting Meat and Dairy as healthy are almost 100% guaranteed to be linked to the industry itself. Originally WAPF was mostly cattle ranchers and now they seem to be hell bent on brainwashing the masses into believing you need cholesterol, saturated fat and meat and dairy in your diet. Which of course is BS.
They use a lot of tactics to confuse the public and their "people" from completely misstating the basic facts of what a study found, using research that no one actually find in a journal, and using industry funded research that is designed to manipulate and confuse.
A few things WAPF won't tell you is that there is 0% requirement for any cholesterol or saturated fat in a humans diet. Only essential fatty acids are required and these can all be obtained easily from fruits and greens. Grass fed cows also have severe nutritional deficiencies.
Check out the chinastudy.com if you want to really learn the truth, the largest ever study conducted on human nutrition. A 27 year study.
The meat and dairy industry is so heavily subsidised that it would collapse if the government stopped funding it. Check out the extent of their funding if you don't believe me.
" A good amount of plant based omega 3s can be converted to dha and epa. However, there are claims people still need the pure source from animal sources."
– isn't it interesting the claims are always made by the people selling the products? I'm not trying to sell you anything i promise :-D
Some of the longest lived cultures were low fat (below 20% calories from fat), high carb (over 69% calories from carbs)
Hunza Vilcabamba Abkhasia
% Calories from carbs – 73% 74% 69%
% Calories from fat – 17% 15% 18%
% diet from plant food – 90% 99% 99%
salt consumption – all low
All creatures that are anatomically and physiologically like us thrive on a low fat diet which is predominantly fruits and vegetables.
The combined caloronutrient average for chimps, bonobo's and orangutans is about 88/7/5, then add in the gorilla's numbers, which come closer to 70% carbs and the average decreases making the ratio almost exactly 80/10/10
"Fat also supplies more than 3X more ATP than carbs"
That's not true!
"Originally WAPF was mostly cattle ranchers and now they seem to be hell bent on brainwashing the masses into believing you need cholesterol, saturated fat and meat and dairy in your diet. Which of course is BS."
Wait a minute! Who exactly is being brainwashed here?
Whatever. It does not matter at all who the WAPF consists of. It's called Weston A. Price foundation for a reason. You can degrade the WAPF all you want, as long as you can't offer any valid criticism about Price's work, your arguments are mostly pointless and only distracts from the subject we are actually talking about, wich is nutrition and not politics.
Every 1 molecule of glucose supplies 38 units of ATP whereas every 1 molecule of fat supplies 146 units of ATP. Fat contains almost 4X more ATP than glucose.
There's other sources that say the same thing.
Bananas appear to supply vitamin A in sufficient quantities. A rich source of magnesium when you have 30+ bananas. Fruits can be high in certain vitamins and minerals. While it appears a banana has most amino acids it still may not be considered a complete protein. Being that it doesn't contain the 8 essential amino acids in the quantities that it would need in order to be considered a complete protein. Some plant sources and all animal sources however do contain higher quanitities of these 8 essential amino acids and may be considered complete protein. I already listed the vegan sources I am aware of.
According to Aajonus Vonderplanitz there are two tribes on higher fat diets that lived to over 140 years of age. The Muran warriors and another tribe. The Muran had over 50% of fat as their intake in the form of raw milk. They ate a purely animal based diet. No fruits or vegetables. Raw milk, raw organs/meat, and blood. The other tribe consumed raw coconuts, some mangoes and pineapples, raw fish, and pig on occasion. They had consumed 1 coconut a day.
The Hunza and Vilcabamba may have lied about their age so they could avoid going to war. The Hunza didn't consume much meat because the higher ups in the tribe got all the meat.
Hey one thing for sure the WAPF is NOT what it used to be. Dr Price's work has been adapted to suit the meat and dairy industries taste.
Weston A Price himself would roll in his grave if he knew the way his foundation was being run these days.
Quote from J.fuhrman :
"When Dr. Price traveled to remote areas, his intent was to find healthful solutions for his dental patients. When we look back with 70 years of scientific hindsight, we can see that his examinations and conclusions were flawed. When he touted the health of primitive peoples, he was not aware of their short life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality, endemic diseases, and infection."
*Butter and butter oil are our ‘super foods? which contain the ?X factor?, discovered by Weston Price.
*Glandular Organ Extracts ? to promote health and healing of the corresponding organ.
*Poached brains of animals should be added to other ground meats for better nutrition
*Raw cows milk and meat broth should be fed to newborns who don’t breast feed, rather than infant formula.
*Regular ingestion of clay (Azolimite Mineral Powder) because the clay particles remove pathogens from the body.
*There are benefits of feeding sea salt to infants and babies
*Fruits and vegetables should be limited in children’s diets.
How can an organization offer nutritional advice so out of step with the world’s scientific literature?
Oh god Aajonus whatplanet has been debunked many times. He recommends getting a piece of grassfed beef and smearing your own shit on it and putting it a glass jar in the fridge for 6months and eating it!!
oh pleeeeeaase intuition anyone?
You obviously didn't read my comment in the thread but I did the 80/10/10 diet for around 6 months consulting with doug graham on the phone. He had me doing the orange juice thing for breakfast. I can only say it was a miserable failure at best. and left me emotional unstable.. My health has improved since I upped my fat intake as my periods stopped for many years… after 9 years being a raw vegan.
I'm wondering how old you are only if I suck my tummy in I would look like you do and I don't need to bike 40 kms to look like that… I'm 39 by the way..
But good luck to you and if your teeth start having issues like I know Doug Grahams have then I would rethink Weston A Price foundation.
I know Doug Personally what is your real name? It's only fair I get the full story right? Seeing you are comfortable sharing the details here then I don't see any reason to be secretive.
What exactly were you eating? 6months is a VERY short amount of time on LFRV. If you were experiencing emotional instability then you weren't eating enough calories, Im emotional too if Im not meeting my caloric needs.
Congrats on having a flat stomach, are you fit? Anyone can get a flat stomach from a starvation diet. I got mine through fitness and consuming over 3000 calories from fruit a day.
@Freelea – No-one should cite The China Study as an authority – it is severely flawed and biased. When I read it, I kept thinking that the data resembled no Chinese diet I was aware of.
The WAPF, at least here in NZ, is organised by volunteers and small farmers – no "big dairy" involved. The emphasis (here at least) is on raw dairy, whole and fermented foods, and traditional preparation for best nutrition.
@ Freelea – regarding your list of "repulsive" items – any part of an animal can be regarded as delicious – nothing wrong with brains, sweetbreads, kidney, liver, tripe, tongue and heart.
Fish heads are enjoyed by many, who consider them the best part of the fish, especially the eyes.
I was watching a programme last night about reindeer herders in Siberia – they relished the warm blood and eyes of a freshly killed deer. All parts of the animal was used or consumed.
Of course you get more energy from 1g of fat than from 1g of glucose.
Fat is much more energy dense than Carbohydrate. Fat contains 39kj per gramm. Glucose contains 17.5.
The important thing is that you need 828 02 and produce 828 CO2 to oxidize one g of glucose.
Whereas you need 2019 02 and produce only 1427C02 to oxidize fat.
Thus, eating fat you consume more oxygen and produce less protective C02 as when you were eating glucose!
On the following page of the book the author reports that people on a high carbohydrate diet have a higher metabolic rate than people on a high fat diet.
Regarding the tribes that according to Aajonus V. become 140 years old. That's probably BS. I don't know who this guy is. But from what I've heard about him I would say he's a retard.
"6months is a VERY short amount of time on LFRV"
Why? Do you honestly want to tell me that a body isn't able to adapt to a certain diet within 6 MONTHS? Especially a diet that is supposed to be optimal.
And what does a real name have to do with anything?
Honestly, in my opinion your points are getting more and more ridiculous with every comment.
When we look back with 70 years of scientific hindsight, we can see that his examinations and conclusions were flawed.
Why? All the disease you listed can be traced back to unsanitary conditions and the environment in general. Most of the diseases of civilization were practically unknown to them and in general they were very healthy and robust. So what exactly tells you that someone from the "civilized" world wouldn't do even worse in such an environment?
"If you were experiencing emotional instability then you weren't eating enough calories, Im emotional too if Im not meeting my caloric needs."
It is a problem if you will automatically discount any bad experiences with 80-10-10. If you do fine on it, then great. But some (I would guess most) do not do well on a such a diet.
You claim to base your views on science but it seems more like you are bending facts to fit your theories. Not all research that supports the consumption of animal products is coming from the meat and dairy industry….
Is it really impossible that your diet is NOT the way that every single person should be eating?
Freelee, If saturated fats and animal products are so bad for me, why do I feel so much better physically and mentally when I consume them? Btw, I was low fat veg for a while and felt like shit.
Jeez, I was wondering when we were going to get some comments going on this one.
Fuhrman and T. Colin Campbell don't understand Weston A. Price or the WAPF. You should think twice about parroting their viewpoints. When you do it makes you sound like a complete idiot. Sally Fallon is not a cattle rancher. The Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation was also not started by cattle ranchers, and the WAPF is one of the biggest slanderers of modern meat and milk production on earth.
Weston A. Price was actually hoping that he would find some humans somewhere living and thriving on a plant-only diet. That did not occur though. Humans, everywhere, eat at least some animal foods. No exceptions. All primates eat at least some animal food. Again, no exceptions.
As far as fat is concerned, the first documented case of heart disease did not occur until 1921 – this despite humans eating a high-fat diet in many places all over the globe. Americans at the time ate much more butter, lard, and beef fat than today – much more coooked starch from grain, corn, and tubers, and far less simple sugar. No one, at any age, had heart attacks until the 1920's.
All the modern studies in the world, even if they do show strong correlations between high-fat diets and heart disease/obesity/diabetes/cancer etc., do not tell the whole story. There is a lot remaining in desperate need of cognitive reconciliation before one can definitely say, "fat kills."
Having said that, the WAPF does leave people feeling like if they don't eat enough butter, full-fat milk, and cod liver oil they will have all their teeth rot out and die shortly thereafter. This, of course, is stupid. And if all diets on earth were capable of making people healthy, and fat intakes ranged from 5% of calories to 80% of calories a century ago, then there is much room for debate on what constitutes a better or best human diet.
Just looking at human design, it would seem that our diets should be built mostly around fruit with occasional meat or insects like our primate cousins. The fact that we were smart enough to learn to cook other foods such as grains and tubers so that we could digest them, admittedly, does not make them optimal. But clearly there must be some advantage, as all humans came to center their diets around cooked starches, not raw fruits and greens – when an unlimited supply of both could be found.
Anyway, interesting thoughts Freelee. I really appreciate you stopping by to give us your thoughts and participate in our discussion.
Once again, as I noted in a comment prior, Pipparoni is Pippa Galea and she has written about her raw vegan catastrophe at length in this post…
It's good to hear experiences of others who do well on different diets. We are all made with the same constituents, but we're all in different places due to prenatal health of our mother and then our evironment and what we were fed and ate as we grew. There has to be reasons why some do well on one diet, and another person does well on another diet. And we're all just looking for a diet that fits us well and also will not cause problems for us in the future. It's tough because we have so many choices. There are people in Haiti who have to and are able to live on dirt.
I have to hand it to Matt for keeping an open mind. That's probably the best thing about this site. Reading about other's experiences can give good clues about what to look for if you're trying something new. It always helps to keep researching and thinking. If you are still having health issues, you will for sure keep searching. If you feel well with what you're eating now, you may think that everyone would feel well eating like you. It would be good to figure out why. It would be good if we could take what is already known and come up with our own new prescription for healing through diet.
(Matt, I know that you've said over and over that that's what you are trying to do.)
Thanks Betsy. Extremely well put. I think all forms of nutrition can probably be used as specific medicine for specific health conditions. Whatever can counterbalance an imbalance is healing.
BTW, here's more on a fruit-based diet and increased physical performance… Michael Arnstein, who eats up to 9000 fruit calories per day…
I've watched a few of the Michael Arnstein videos on youtube before. The one I remember most is him in his NYC apartment all bundled up because he's like 3%BF & cold all the time. Currently he thinks that's a good tradeoff for increased athletic performance.
A few more observations on a fruit-based raw vegan diet is that those who are most successful are those in tropical climates & it helps to be male. Men seem to fare better on any type of vegan diet probably for a variety of reasons.
It's funny how some of the benefits of these vegan diets correlate with those experiences of starvation seen in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. By this I mean the ultra low bodyfat, very low muscle mass and tone, the claims of "heightened senses"(like hearing, tasting, seeing), emotional status
…very interesting to think about
FYI, the low protein content in human milk still works out to be about 1.5-2g/kg, which is extremely high and more than twice the RDA for an adult.
A baby's brain also uses about 50g of carbohydrate a day, which is more or less what he or she gets from Mom… So it's not as simple as just looking at the proportions. :)
All the best
BTW here is a video of Michael Arnstein explaining why he's cold all the time and what he does about it.
It's pretty funny.
Interestingly, in his most recent videos he no longer wants to associate with Doug & 811 & wants to be considered just a fruitarian.
Matt, great comments on Weston A Price and his followers. I agree with many of the principles promoted by the WAPF but not everything. And there is definitely a stong hint of dogma floating around the WAPF community (just about as strong as that in the vegan crowd to be honest). And I completely agree with this:
"Having said that, the WAPF does leave people feeling like if they don't eat enough butter, full-fat milk, and cod liver oil they will have all their teeth rot out and die shortly thereafter."
My mom and I were just discussing this yesterday. Both of us started pounding the butter and other popular WAPF foods after discovering Nourishing Traditions and both of us subsequently gained an undesirable amount of fat weight. I *don't* feel it was the butter itself that caused this as much as the belief circulating in that crowd that you can't eat too many animal foods–or any other "nourishing" food for that matter. Of course, after years of under-nourishment I suppose it was only natural to binge on nutrient-dense foods for a time, but I'm finally learning the meaning of the phrase "too much of a good thing."
You've confused me, too, Matt and I thank you for it. I don't see any point in trading one dogma for another, whether it's the food pyradmid, the carb-haters, the paleo crowd, WAP worshippers, fruitarians or any other food belief system.
And if anyone ever hears me saying I've found the diet that's right for *everyone* I hope someone smacks me upside the head. ;)
This is my favorite 80/10/10 video:
I recently and comfortably switched to a predominantly fruit based diet after HEDing it for a few months.
I'm doing extremely well with the occasional addition of meat and If I start to feel like I need something more, I guess I'll just eat it.
Matt's latest post and the participation of it's subject have reminded me how far I've come from the days of "in sickness and in health-til death us do part" style dieting. And I gotta say that although welcome, Freelee comes across as an extremely conceited and obnoxious woman. Anyone who obviously spends most of her time posing for yet another "check me out" photo would probably inspire me to eat my own shit just to get her out the room.
Arnstein seems like a more enlightened individual.
oh no she didn't!!! reference the china study… haha.
Interesting discussion though, thanks for posting.
"If you feel you are at your preferred weight and wish to lean out, I would recommend something like what I did. Eat 3 meals a day and space them around 6 hours apart, eating around your body weight in grams of protein and about 90% of the rest of your calories from carbs. It worked great for me(got the most vascular I have ever been) but I am trying to add more muscle mass right now. "
Interesting. So now that you are trying to add mass, how exactly has your diet changed? Do you eat more protein/calories or what are you doing?
Pippa Galea is my name
I now eat plenty of red meat, butter, fruit, eggs, veggies, must average around 2500 a day if not more.
Sleep 8 hours most nights
dance 2 x a week for 2 hours, beach walks 3 days a week of around an hour. Stand up paddle boarding 2 x a week for a few hours..
Wouldn't say I'm fit by your standards but I'm not really interested in doing endurance training as I don't think it is natural for the body on a regular basis..
You didn't reply how old you are freelee.. Would you mind tell us?
Have to say that y hair and skin are very nice and shiny. Digestion is pretty stable these days and has improved a lot over the past 6 months. My thyroid was pretty damaged after all those years of no protein but it's really hard to tell how well someone is by looking at the outside .. Most people think I look a lot younger than I am. But there are still a few health issues that I am dealing with…and most of them I would put down to being on a raw vegan diet for so long…Especially if you have issues with your blood sugar levels to start off with..
I just can't believe that people are actually eating 3000+ calories of solely fruit a day and think it is the optimal human diet. As Freelee said "oh pleeeeeaase intuition anyone?" well I don't see how eating 15 bananas for lunch goes with intuition…..
Glad it is working for you, but I very much doubt you will have robust health in 10-15 years on the diet you are on.
Anyhow great discussion in this post!
Here's a new interview just posted with Dr Mercola and Dr Richard Johnson.
I haven't listened to much yet, but he goes into eating refined fructose sources vs fructose from fruit etc….
In that interview, Richard Johnson talks his new research showing that people who are already severely insulin resistant, they can and do convert glucose into fructose making the insulin resistance even worse.
However if you are not insulin resistant or only mildly insulin resistant, this does not happen and glucose, dextrose, starch etc….are safe.
He also talks about how fruit seems to be safe compared to refined sources of fructose, maybe due to the antioxidants counter balancing the increases in uric acid. However he's not yet certain if people can eat large amounts of fruit. It depends on how much uric acid you have etc…
I was a veg*n for 15 yrs, freelea & harley’s comments demonstrate the reason I started questioning its dogma & examining the facts before I abandoned it.
Freelee ? here are some answers to your overtly predictably vegan concerns which did not exhibit any careful thought or examination:
First, you provide absolutely no reference for your claims, starting with the most absurd:
1 — ?Does the consumption of the food contribute to the destruction of the planet and its inhabitants???Eat fruit with a clear conscience. ???
I assume you do not live in Costa Rica, or have your own backyard banana plantation, so the entire raw vegan diet ? including organic bananas – is imported from all over the world.
During every winters here in New England, every self righteous, unaware vegan pays multinational corporations that use industrial monocrop farming methods and felling of forests, plowing of prairies, draining of wetlands, destruction of top soil to produce their ?natural? diet.
And yes, that includes your organic farms as well. (Dole dominates the market for organic bananas and now works w Monsanto)
And if anyone thinks that vegans eat ?all organic?, you are mistaken. In fact, most vegans I know (for over 25 yrs now, don’t shop at farmers markets, they go to Whole Foods or local health food stores that are almost exclusively non-local (at least until recently).
Do you think the indigenous, native populations or the billions of microorganisms, field mice, insects and small game that get destroyed en masse by industrial organic monocrop farming agree with your subjective idea of a ?clear conscience??
Know anything about the political history of agriculture, corporate imperialism and industrial food production in third world countries? Most vegans do not ?.
They are most often looking for neat little sound bites and unsupported claims that support their ideology no matter how un natural or absurd.
Over 300,000 edible plants, so how does 30 bananas a day reflect what’s ?natural? and where does anyone get the idea that its even remotely ecological intelligent or sustainable?
?Clear conscience? comes from your (most every vegan) sense of entitlement based on popular mythology like the raw vegan diet doesn’t destroy the planet.
WHAT NO ONE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT – denial of science, ignorance of evolution, ecology, biology, an overwhelming dogmatic & exclusive attitudes and its consequent bigotry which are fundamental to veg*nism.
Veganism is a religion that many of its adherents would have forced onto most of human populations.
Anyone who wants to understand the dangerous nature of vegan ideology would be well served by reading Dawkins, Hutchens or Sam Harris.
Vegans interested in health, nutrition & ecology would be well served reading Michael Pollan or Lierre Keith before regurgitating their propaganda and filling the atmosphere with unnecessary carbon gasses.
And, yeah, a hot girl w fake boobs says nothing ? it is entertaining to watch, but only for a brief moment … until my frontal cortex required me to instead watch a Slayer video for something much more useful.
BIOCHEMICAL INDIVIDUALITY ? one mistake most everyone makes when discussing nutrition is what determines our food requirements, metabolic management or expresses / suppresses our genetic potential as human beings is largely individual in nature.
Many vegans ? even some commenter’s here ? seem oblivious to the fact that what ?works? for you is not applicable to the entire human race.
Harley brings up a similarly absurd idea that requires no response ? using bodybuilders, celebrities or endurance athletes as ?proof? of the efficacy of vegan diet or the universal application for one diet for all humanity ?
Since most vegans dont provide any data to support their claims, few if any have any grasp on how ?healthy? or not vegans truly are.
Someone looking good or performing well in their sport says absolutely nothing about the pathological pursuit of excessive & catabolic exercise (endurace sports) or whether they are ?healthy? or not.
EMOTIONAL INSTABILITY – Low Fat Diets ? do lend themselves quite easily, I might add, to emotional instability which can often often a result of insufficient fat, esp saturated fat & cholesterol which is required for optimal nruecemistry & hormonal balance.
Calories & Protein
??Graham asserts that with a diet containing ample calories, there is no such thing as protein deficiency.
Graham isn’t involved in neuroscience from what I gathered.
This and most topics of nutrition end to obliquely ignore biochemical individuality and nutrition for optimal brain health.
Absence of kwashiorkor doesn’t mean the person has sufficient protein in their diet.
Many people, young women in particular, can have sufficient calories while having brain chemistry and hormonal imbalance ? thanks to hi carb / low fat / nutrient deficient diets and an irrational fear of animal foods.
I work with many women who have brain chemistry imbalance (emotional instability, depression, ocd, anxiety, etc) from insufficient protein ? which is why amino acid therapy is highly effective in restoring health in recovering addicts and people brain allergies .. and from the many raw vegans I (and many colleagues, friends, experts, teachers) have helped reverse the damages of this biologically inappropriate diet.
Despite adequate caloric intake, amino acid deficiency is real if you understand the intricacies of brain chemistry, which may take another 20 years before its widely accepted in the medical community. In the meanwhile, look into Julia Ross and Eric Braverman for a good introduction on the topic.
Give our culture another 20-30 years before cutting edge sciences began addressing undiagnosed brain chemistry imbalance, thyroid dysfunction & gluten intolerance becomes more mainstream.
?Any reference to the Weston A Price Foundation as being a credible source of dietary information is seriously misguided. ..
This comment alone disqualifies anyone from speaking anything further. This is the height of vegan ignorance and propaganda. Why should we tolerate such ignorance from anyone?
?10% of our calories as fat is more than sufficient to meet all our needs ? ?
This idea is based again on a universal approach (one size fits all) to diet — who’s needs are you talking about?
Yesterday, I worked w a 12 yr old athlete, then I saw 2 pregnant women with radically different dietary plans, then a 250 man and then Monday morning I see a guy who is on statins, doesn’t know the first thing about ?whole foods? is 150+ lbs overweight and stays up late (stress) ?
this is a sample of how our stress levels and different biological requirements for food require an individualized approach to nutrition.
Tonight, I’m hanging out with a friend who races cars professionally, he is in the driver seat at temperatures over 100 degrees for upto 6 hrs, with massive G forces and sometimes collision at 100+ MPH. These guys can lose 10 lbs per race at times (heavy clothing and lots of heat). Monday afternoon I work with a 58 yr old lady who is training for the world’s championships in rowing.
Still think your formula works for all people?
Without a thorough understanding of how stress effects the body, these ?universal diet? ideas are ignorant at best and damaging at worst.
"This is my favorite 80/10/10 video:
Tell her I've got a banana and a couple grapes to shut her up
Make that a cucumber and apples actually thanks
One wonders why Freelee could at all be defensive or emotional in her posts here. Lol.
Those of you insulting Freelee are not exactly facilitating understanding between camps. What's the point?
Where did Freelee go? Did she run away? Or did Pepperoni slay her. That must mean the carnivores win because they're still here and fighting and she's saying nothing.
I am going to do a new post on my blog, and I will explain what I am doing now and how I am currently eating to continue my mass gains.
She lives in Australia, Daniel. She's likely asleep.
Let's all be adult about this, shall we? I agree the insults and derogatory comments about this woman's body that keep cropping up are lame, make you guys look like dickheads and negate pretty much everything else you say.
I actually think it's great that Freelee and Harley are doing so well on the diet and are so passionate about it. Their heart is in the right place. I've been like that about my diet before. I was super militant about very-low-carb and tried to convert my famly and friends. I realize now how misguided I was an I'm really glad none of them listened to me!
Anyone who comes from a history of ill-health is usually going to get pretty excited about a diet that makes them feel good, even if it (unfortunately) ends up being just temporary relief. For all I know, these guys will be vegan for life. Or maybe they'll change their minds after several years of experience, like a lot of people do. Like I did.
Don't be bullies – that's exactly what turns us off about most vegans, yes? That they want to either convert you or label you morally bankrupt. I say let's do them the respect of letting them be.
I mean no ill will. I'm just trying to further instigate a chick fight. That's all. I hope my comments didn't hurt anybody.
@Brian: What kind of blender did you get? Because the hand held blenders are so much easier to clean and they work just fine for fruit smoothies.
Making someone accountable for spreading false information is not 'bullying'
I dont think anyone said anything derogatory to the person …
Derogatory comments about women are not cool and shouldnt be tolerated as well, I agree, I only remarked that she has fake boobs which is not derogatory at all, its fact … calling others dickheads sounds a bit derogatory, no?
Why should we tolerate vegans who enjoy arguing and come to forums to prove & defend their dogma?
If someone wants to learn, Im sure they would be welcome, this person doesnt want to learn, they want to agitate, prove & defend.
There have been healthy groups of people all around this planet that have done very well on diets from very low fat (i.e. Kitavans) to very high fat (i.e. Inuits) and across the whole spectrum in between. To say that one diet is the best is a pretty strong statement. Try converting an Inuit in their environment to start eating 30 bananas for breakfast and see if they still thrive.
In the posts of the folks that did NOT do well on 80-10-10, what was your exercise routine like? The picture that is coming into focus looks like that an obscene amount of exercise may be required to balance that diet out and if excessive exercise is not part of that lifestyle, it becomes unsustainable at all. Not that it could be sustainable for every person regardless of exercise.
I would just like to point out to anyone that bashes saturated fat, that whenever you eat excessive carbohydrate that your body cannot use and it gets stored as fat…it is mostly SATURATED fat.
As far as pointing out the macronutrient breakdown of human milk is, as to point out what is optimal, after a calf no longer drinks milk from its mother, I don't think that it's natural diet of grass is exactly the same as the milk content.
Along those same lines, if you don't consume any cholesterol at all, you can still have high cholesterol because the body will produce it in the liver. Cows do not consume any cholesterol but I don't think that there is much of an argument that the steak from our vegan cow friends is high in cholesterol.
Oh, and I believe that Matt was using "doh" as in the Homer Simpson exclamation rather than "duh".
And one more point, I was a vegan, mostly raw for over a year and a half, and I felt horrible. It was another vegan, a naturopathic doctor, that got me to switch to eating at least milk and eggs. The difference was amazing. You don't realize how bad you feel until you start feeling better.
I don't think it's bullying someone to deem them conceited and obnoxious.
And the level of Freeleas self obsession is evident for all to see.
Had I called her a dickhead however……..
Also, there are all kinds of people who's "hearts are in the right place" but still cause untold damage to other people.
We are simply reacting to this person's smug and patronising dogma not going off on some misogynistic bender.
Freelea offers her '30 days to freedom' personal guidance for $500.
any takers? didn't think so.
Harley and Leanne ("Freelea") bring an agenda to the table. It's not a secret. They truly believe that a vegan lifestyle is the answer to humanity's environmental and physical issues. They order their thinking and behavior around that belief. It's a fundamentalist approach, so you can't bring them to the table and expect them to pass the pork chops or the salt.
Harley has admitted in public that he has no problems with lying or using negative reinforcement to get his message out there. They both post insinuating posts about other folks in the raw foods community under the tenets of "just keeping everyone honest" or "holding everyone to a higher standard."
I believe that they believe all of this, deep in their heart. When they start a thread at their site bashing someone, they really believe that "shining light" on a person's perceived character flaws will enlighten their own community and will help change that person.
They don't see their behavior – as most outsiders do – as cruel, unnecessarily dogmatic, unaware, and, frankly, unintelligent in its refusal to engage in true dialog. They really do think they are helping people. They call their approach "tough love." There are members of their community who feel they have benefited from this approach, and they've developed quite a little army of supporters. I'm glad that those folks have found something that makes sense for them.
There is a fair amount of cognitive dissonance in their message and who they are. Leanne's breast implants are a great example of this. Leanne uses her body to sell her message. If she had small breasts – which most women of her body fat percentage have – the message wouldn't be as visually interesting, perhaps, to those she is wishing to reach. So she uses the implants in an ongoing series of what she calls "cheeky" poses.
Leanne and Harley say they prescribe to the principles of Natural Hygiene, which is the tradition from which their guru, Doug Graham, arrives. Now, breast implants are certainly against the tenets of NH. But, when folks bring up questions about implants, both Leanne and Harley jump in with a "it's a personal choice" and "there is no harm" statement.
It's a confusing message. Mention that you salt your salad, and you will be "held to a higher standard" but Leanne's body modifications are, in fact, celebrated in their community. It is strange, really, considering the body of research and personal testimony that implants seem to be related to immunity issues. And it's why folks bring up the implants at sites like this – the mind has a difficult time wrapping around the "hey look at my body, I got this through fruit" when the flat stomach may be the result of the diet, but certainly not the not-quite-clothed breasts. It's just a fact. The message gets mixed up with the personalities.
I wish them health and success in this life, as I do for all of the members of their community. After dancing with the raw vegan devil, I no longer eat the way they do. I believe, as UrbanAntonio explains, that the human body should be celebrated in its diversity. I don't believe there is one diet for all people.
But, like Matt says, here are some people who are eating mostly fruit, very little fat, and who seem to be thriving from an athletic standpoint. There is something there to examine and wonder about. I think the point of Matt's post isn't to say that Harley and Leanne have the answers, but to say, "hey, let's look at what this group is doing, and let's ask if there is something here for the rest of us."
I initially planned to post my observations about the possible psychological reasons undelying the behavious of some of the raw vegan gurus and health authorities in general, but decided to go on a little rant instead (like the internet isn't full enough of those already).
I think defending your viewpoint and your diet is one thing, but ignoring very obvious sign of human "degenration" is something completely different:
"I watched people bring up their kids on mainly fruit. One young girls teeth came thru black, rotted. After a few years her dad started to feed her some Raw Goat cheese. she went bonkers on it, craved it like a crazy women…
Other Raw vegan kids had growth issues and mental retardation..
Most of this isn't made public in the raw vegan movement. But for sure it happens…and at least a few of the kids I mention are kids of the leading raw foods advocates in the U.K…
No one ever says anything because they make alot of their money pushing themselves as raw food coaches or selling raw foods items…"
I don't know how much Freelee is aware of this, but how can people that know of this keep on preaching their dietary views with a clear conscience?
Honestly, you are pretty much ruining your childrens lives from the get-go seemingly without bothering AT ALL!
I realize that this might hurt some peoples financial interest, but come on, there actually even are ways to raise awareness of this without even having to give up your original message.
I certainly don't advocate recommending a raw vegan diet as the optimal diet for everyone (or even for anyone for that matter), but the need for animal foods during childhood does not even have to contradict living a vegan lifestyle in adulthood. After all someone already said that calves also drink milk even though they consume an almost strictly vegan diet later in life. It is a fact that human beings need much longer to fully develop so it only would make sense to keep on feeding your child animal products even after stopping lactation. And as soon as your kid has grown up, you can let him/her decide for him-/herself what kind of diet he/she wants to eat.
Seeing how people might value financial interests or diet ideologies higher than the health of children really does not help reassuring my faith in humanity.
End of rant.
@Betsy: It's a Black & Decker Crushmaster…it was on sale this weekend so I thought I would try it. Are you referring to small ones like the Magic Bullet? I've heard that those didn't work so well but I have not tried them.
I think it is important to respect the different dietary choices that people make, but at the same time it needs to be pointed out if misinformation is being spread around. The raw vegan movement it not really based on any valid science or observations of societies that have been eating that way. It's really based more on philosophy/ethics, which is dangerous if it causes you to ignore your body's reaction and continue to follow it because you think it is the "right" approach. Even the ethical viewpoint on which it is based is completely flawed.
I've also seen the comment on a several vegan threads along the lines of, "If you're craving pizza, and I offer you fruit and you don't want it, you're not really hungry. You're having an emotional craving, not a physiological one."
In my personal experience this is a completely counterproductive way to deal with cravings. While there may be emotional cravings, I've found most often that cravings for specific foods are linked to physical deficiencies. Not that anyone is deficient in pizza (lol), but that kind of craving could very well be a manifestation of something going on physiologically. To brush off every craving as an emotional attachment could be harmful because it promotes ignoring your body rather than listening to it and seeing what you can learn.
From what I've seen, many vegans love to put subjects into neat little boxes and then ignore everything else as a demonstration of faith. That way of thinking has never benefitted me personally and the further I get away from it, the more I learn and the more opportunities I find to improve my life.
@Brian: No, the type I'm referring to is called a hand held blender. You put the part with the blade into a cup and blend. Then you remove the blade part and only have to wash that. It can go in the dishwasher. They can be very inexpensive, but I see that Cuisinart and KitchenAid are making expensive models now. I don't think it would work any better than the one you bought, they are just great for being quick to use and easy to clean.
@Matt….using doh as a Homer response instead of "duh"…
Sorry, my duh.
Thanks Captain Antonio Valladares for your input. Note that the 2 most vicious commentors here were the two people who spent the MOST time on the vegan diet – Pippa and Antonio.
Suckers!!! Ha ha ha.
This is Antonio by the way…
Appreciate what you said. It's important not to follow one set of dietary dogma, no matter what it is. The WAPF would totally negate everything that Doug Graham, Dean Ornish, Joel Furhman, or Neal Barnard have to say. That would be unfortunate if you just had a heart attack or were a type 2 diabetic, as their very low fat strategies work a hell of a lot better at restoring insulin sensitivity and decreasing atherosclerosis than anything served up by Sally, Mary, Thomas, Ron, Kaayla, and all those others in bed with the meat-packing industry LOL.
Any ignorance or vendettas aside, it's important to scrutinize how certain diets and lifestyle behaviors impact our health. Danger arises when you have exclusionary mindsets that say "meat is toxic" or "carbs are the devil" or "artery-clogging saturated fat." Anyone who proscribes to any narrow idealogy surrounding diet/exercise/health is setting themselves up for disaster. We need mental flexibility when it comes to health so our minds don't get in the way too much.
There are people out there in desperate need of carbohydrates that think fruit or potatoes are going to make them fat, diabetic, give them out of control hunger, and cause heart disease. There are others that think if you don't get enough fat soluble vitamin A and D that you might as well just shoot yourself (speaking of China Study, the higher the fat soluble vitamin A intake, the higher the mortality rate). Others still think that if they eat a piece of cooked meat they will get cancer.
But low-fat diets, vegan diets, high-fat diets, high-protein diets… they can all be medicine in certain circumstances. They can all cause health problems and imbalances if followed blindly for too long.
Just as bed rest and exercising 4 hours a day can both be medicine and poison in certain circumstances.
Yeah, when I was cold all the time and as ripped as he was, my athletic performance was by far the best it's ever been.
Arnstein has no muscle tone? I beg to differ.
Also Riles, if you'd like to do a guest post here instead, you are welcome to. We're all very interested in the results you've had and your general recommendations are very sound.
For better or worse until death do us part dieting. I'm totally stealing that from you.
Glad you're grasping the diet/lifestyle flexibility concept that I just elaborated upon. Hope the fruit treats you well. I feel like a lower-fat, mostly fruit-based diet is very timely for me. I've eaten an average of about 200 grams of fat every day for the last 4 years. It feels like time for a break. The milk diet definitely put me over the edge on that.
I have a feeling you've left your last comment, but I'm grateful you stopped by. You have opened our minds to new things, and I hope we have done the same for you – expanding your sphere of nutrition and lifestyle dogma to be more comprehensive, open-minded, and sophisticated.
Good points regarding biochemical individuality. I have brought this up numerous times on here as being crucial, but the people on her don't seem to be open to it.
I believe that the best way to spot a BAD diet guru is find one that preaches the exact same diet for everyone. Of course it is the one that worked for their personal situation, so it must be good for everyone else too.
Seems like where you live might also determine what kind of diet works best. Since reading this post I've been exploring the fruitarian sites and have noticed that most successful fruit-eaters live in tropical climates. A notable exception being Arnstein, shivering in his apartment and speaking wistfully of the "hot soups" he'll never have again. Poor dude.
I'm not up on the biochemistry here, but could scads of Vit. D being a determining factor?
I live in the northeast US and find myself naturally eating very differently during the year — can barely look at a lettuce leaf in winter, and knock back pound after pound of blueberries in their season.
I ordered the 80-10-10 book and am considering trying it for one month only. With three other people to feed in my household, I don't know how feasible it will be longer than that, and the "hair falling out" stuff makes me nervous. But I could use a radical change, a brief kick in the pants. And low-carb slowed me way down, too, Matt. Hoping a fruit binge will help my running.
I think Freelee looks great — a very good advertisement for her diet. Arnstein is ripped, but his face looks like he's suffering.
Matt and Everyone else.
I have been doing HED for about a month and a half. My Body Temp was 97.2 in the morning and 97.6 around 4pm now it is 98.1 in the morning and 98.5 around 4pm. I have been as high as 98.8 after a nice meal. I gained a total of 5lbs from 242-247 lbs. I feel like I have restored my metabolism. I would really like to do Carb Cycling. I was planning on going Mon-Thursday without Starch or Fruit and then adding Starch and Fruit back on Friday-Sunday. Does that sound like a good idea? Is there a problem with having 4 low carb days in a row? I dont want to do anything to hurt my metabolism.
Great discussion going on here. I love to read all the different inputs from everyone. We've all got to keep an open mind.
I used to be very close minded before Daniel kicked my butt. I thought Cobra Kai was IT and sinsay was a God. Matt is my real savior.
I answered your comment on the Catecholamine Honeymoon thread.
A month is no big deal, and I think you'll find it is quite rejuvenating, refreshing, cleansing, and energizing. Just don't lose 10 years of your life doing it. You're right that Vitamin D may play a role in fructose metabolism (proposed by the Nephropal blog). Graham actually recommends moving to a Tropical location. Twist my arm!
Don't forget Mr. Miyagi kicked your butt too. Sweet costume though. Glow in the dark skeleton pajamas in size Youth Medium skyrocketed that year.
for what its worth,
tend to agree with your host here, fruit diets can be a good healing tool in the arsenal for shorter term dietary excesses.
But, the body is in a current state of dynamic fluidity and so sticking rigidly to one particular eating pattern is a recipe for imbalance.
Coming from a traditional Chinese medicine perspective, prolonged and (predoimant) use of fruit (a cooling food) will be to the detriment of this dynamic balance.
Personally, I have never come across anyone who has managed to adhere to such an exceptionally cooling eating pattern for any length of time without some health ramifications.
Not to say, there is not such an individual, but certainly most rare.
My two cents worth
Somewhat OT from this thread but what do you think of this herbal concoction?
I'm wandering if I should investigate more into the uses of herbs for shakes and stuff. The ultimate raw egg nog shake!!!
I have been busy with my multiple websites and yes Matt this will be my last comment. Thanks for inviting me around but I find it quite impossible to debate with people who don't actually understand basic physiology, nothing personal just highly evident. You haven't actually opened my mind in any way, I have been debating with paleo's for years. As usual no sound scientific data has been presented at all so It's time to move on.
Before I go…
Hey Annette do you kill your own "meat" or is it a "ready made" purchase from Mr Butcher?
I know WAPF and other meat & dairy funded industries have tried their hardest to discredit the China Study. Fortunately their claims are never based on any sound peer-reviewed scientific research, like I said earlier.
The brilliant Dr Campbell talks honestly about it here..
In brief, Weston Price's suggestion that dental caries was associated with the introduction of commerce (probably including processed and sweetened food products) was quite convincing, not unlike similar reports of others. He also speculated about an 'X' factor in milk fat, supposedly suggesting health benefits for cow's milk, but no follow-up findings on this 'X' factor consistent with human health have since been reported. In no way did Price publish reliable data in this book that could be used to evaluate the relationship of food with overall health. He did speculate, however, with some evidence, on the loss of nutritional value of food at that time (1920s-1930s) as a result of soil depletion and overuse. Excepting his observations on an association of dental caries incidence with processed food, Price's study, in my opinion, is of limited scientific value.
Pippa I am 30 years old but that has nothing to do with having a flat stomach! lol my mum has a flat stomach and she is 60 this year, she is 97% LFRV and fit as.
I chatted to Doug he said:
"I do vaguely recall briefly communicating with Pippa quite some time ago. It had to have been some years ago, as I have no record of it in my now 5-year old computer.
Certainly we did not consult for six months. I can count on my toes and fingers the number of people that have ever engaged my services for such a time length,
Of course you know I have always claimed to be lucky when I get an hour per day of physical activity, and have never recommended otherwise to anyone other than professional athletes, or those wanting the results professionals get.
So, basically, her facts are wrong. But if she is happy eating SAD and is also happy to note that many of her friends are happy on raw vegan, why engage her?" – good point!
Anyway Pippa you are right this diet isn't for everyone, not everyone is willing to do what it takes to make it work. We have NEVER met anyone in all the years we have been on this path who doesn't thrive on this lifestyle. Best wishes with your current program, we all deserve vibrant health.
Species specific diets….
Every species has a species-specific diet and it's referred to as such. Some animals are carnivores and some are omnivores and some are herbivores, gramnivores, all sortssorts of different types. This is determined by their anatomy and physiology.
There's no reason to think that humans shouldn't have a species specific diet that is optimal for us.
Something I find quite amusing Matt is when you say this diet is good for a "cleanse". Why would it make sense to detoxify your body, go through all that "cleansing" to only retoxify your body again?? Quite a mad concept when you think about it.
Anyhoo that's all from me Matt, thanks for featuring me :-) I hope you find a diet you can stick with longer than a few weeks, consistency really is the key. I should know that after being 100% LFRV for almost 3 years now.
Some facts to leave you with…
-Most common cause of death in the U.S.: heart attack
-How frequently a heart attack kills in the U.S.: every 45 seconds
-Average U.S. man’s risk of death from heart attack: 50 percent
-Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat: 15 percent
-Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat, dairy or eggs: 4 percent
-Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption of meat, dairy and eggs by 10 percent: 9 percent
-Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption by 50 percent: 45 percent
-Amount you reduce risk if you eliminate meat, dairy and eggs from your diet: 90 percent
-Average cholesterol level of people eating meat-centered-diet: 210 mg/dl
-Chance of dying from heart disease if you are male and your blood cholesterol level is 210 mg/dl: greater than 50 percent
-Number of animals killed for meat per hour in the U.S.: 660,000
-Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker
-Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job-injury in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker
Great to see your supporting such a wholesome industry .
Freelee, you are obviously very set in your ways. I don't blame you, if you were open minded at all you would lose your fans and wouldn't make any money. Perhaps you will come back when your teeth start to fall out.
Matt – Time for a forum man or something. These comments are getting ridiculously long!
Just my two cents =)
Freelee, it's a shame the stance that you have taken. The degrees of difference between you and what Matt uses might not be as much as you think. Looking at Jack Lalanne, Clarence Bass, Don Wildman, Art Linkletter, Bob Delmontique, etc., you will see that these guys eat low fat, low meat, and all have lived long, healthy, vibrant lives (Art just passed away at 97 y.o. and Don is the "baby" at 76). But I don't believe that any of them are vegan. You could have used this opportunity to point to the similarities and provide good info rather than the "my way is the one true way" approach. We could have garnered more from your posts if they were a tad less militant. Good luck to you and I hope that if your health does degrade at some time in the future that you take a practical approach and switch to something that provides healing rather than staying with something on the grounds of ideology.
The Anonymous post that talked about the "tough love" and "higher standards" was a well thought out and excellent post. Thanks.
WOW Freelee!!! your full of crap as of now!!!! Sorry, i can't stand back and read your one set minded shit… never mind that the native americans ate all kinds of animals and thrived… and for a matter of fact, alot of other primitive cultures.
3 Years on your diet… it usually takes five for most healthy young adults to lose all there muscle and b vitamin and A stores on a diet like yours… maybe longer since you realize calories are important… and not to mention all your excessive exercise!!! You talk alot about understanding basic physiology, well you should look yourself in the mirror and talk… or just visit http://www.totalityofbeing.com.
I have to agree with alot of other people commenting.. can everyone in this world buy 30-50 bananas a day… no way!!! Thats why animal foods are great… supplying a ton of calories in a small package… can anyone say liver, heart, glands, brain….. raw milk, cream, and cheese… on top of raising animals on grass… they refertilize… plants can't do that by themselves!!!! … Organic vegetables require animal manure… and most berry farms.
I agree with most here… but climate and location have alot to do with health… and many many more factors… i hope you realize this one day.
Also, i am just as skinny as you… but with way more muscle… and i can eat veggies, meat, organs, glands, fruit, micro brew, wine, dairy, grains, potatoes, and rice… Plus i have never broken a bone in my life… and i don't need to enhance my body with silicone…
You reference crap also… americans eat alot of veggie oils… that equals inflammation, which leads to the clogged arteries. Not to mention… your stupid endurence training… i love barefoot running, but your type of training causes a ton of inflammation… weightraining builds new mitochondria… energy!!!! Nothing else will!!
blah, Eat everything… and if not, You miss out on life, culture, family, friends, and become an elite bias jerk in the process!!!!
wow apparently Doug only ever had a handful of people that only consulted with him for over 6 months. Guess the rest never saw any results then and gave up..
I think I was told that by so many raw food guru's You not doing it right. How many years of beating myself up and trying even harder to be perfect. Thankfully my eating disorder days have gone and I don't eat SAD..
"I have been busy with my multiple websites and yes Matt this will be my last comment. Thanks for inviting me around but I find it quite impossible to debate with people who don't actually understand basic physiology, nothing personal just highly evident. You haven't actually opened my mind in any way, I have been debating with paleo's for years. As usual no sound scientific data has been presented at all so It's time to move on."
Oh my…where to begin? First of all, Matt is not paleo; a brief perusal of his blog will reveal that fact to anybody with basic skills in reading comprehension. Obviously, you haven't spent much time familiarizing yourself with your oppenent(s), which hints at a potential dogmatic view of things. Oh, that's right; you haven't the time.
Moreover, instead of bitching that people do not "understand" basic physiology, why don't you educate them? Yes, if people don't understand or know something and insist on expressing their opinion anyway, it can be annoying. And debate with them can be pointless. However, if you truly believe that LFRV is humankind's "species specific diet" and "basic physiology" demonstrates that and negates all other dietary approaches -as you so strongly imply- it behooves you to at least attempt to demonstrate, at even the most rudimentary level, how this is so. Or at least take few seconds to link to a site that does that. Otherwise, all I see is a lot of swagger with weasel words and phrases that have no substance.
Oh, and as for this sentence: "As usual no sound scientific data has been presented at all so It's time to move on." Ditto, Ma'am, ditto.
"Something I find quite amusing Matt is when you say this diet is good for a "cleanse". Why would it make sense to detoxify your body, go through all that "cleansing" to only retoxify your body again?? Quite a mad concept when you think about it."
Uh, who said anything about "retoxifying" again? You are imposing your assumptions about diets on somebody else and twisting what they are actually saying. Not very intellectually honest. You do realize that certain dietary approaches can have utility in certain contexts and enable one to accomplish short term goals but be harmful long-term, right? Of course you don't: LFRV is mankind's species specific diet, it is humankind's panacea, it is manna from Heaven, for ever and ever, Amen!
(OK, I just realized it is later than I thought…I have more to say -particularly about the concept of "species specific diets," and "peer reviewed research"- but I'll say it later.)
I don't think Thomas Cowan uses a high fat diet for healing type 2 diabetes. He has his own personal suggestions. I find his book very interesting. I don't understand why you never reference his books even though it works with hormone healing and herbs. Stuff you've talked about on your forums and on your e zines. Getting in a higher level of nutrients such as D, K2, probiotics, digestive enzymes, minerals may also play a huge part in healing diabetes. Many experts say to just cut out the vegetables oils and the refined sugar. Coconut may also be good for people with diabetes. Avoid highly processed foods and foods high in carcinogens.
Matt: Hey, you should come see Aurora's face right now. She's got acne for the first time in her life after a steady diet of Haagen Daz ice cream post jaw surgery.
EL 66K: I had acne in a no sugar diet with lots of fat, starch and real food. Things are complex.
I have to add to this on the topic of fructose-acne correlations, because acne is the one (and only) thing I have actually cured with my food experimentations. It seems as though it is the omega 6s/PUFAs that spark my acne, and NOT SUGAR. I too ate no sugar for about 9 mos, with no luck for my acne. However, I stopped eating O6 and taking fish oil, and acne: gone. Whenever I slip up with the O6, like at a restaurant, I can feel the acne coming back within hours. However, I've tested eating LOTS of sugar/fructose in this last month– soda, ice cream, OJ, applesauce, etc- and I do NOT breakout.
Matt, was Aurora eating ice cream with peanut butter or excessive amounts of nuts? Even so, I have to admit to the frustrating cop-out that people may just be different. For instance, so many people can eat O6 and not have acne.
On the subject of fructose, I'm pretty convinced it's not bad, despite all the research and historical evidence. It's a carbohydrate that has unique properties (and I hate that official sources do not recognize that). But that doesn't automatically make it bad. So fructose raises uric acid and triglycerides. So? Maybe that's why people crave it, or fruit for that matter. Uric acid is an antioxidant, raises blood pressure (which may be good), and triglycerides are energy. It's only when these things are chronically raised that they are a problem– does fructose do that? (I'm honestly asking.) Otherwise, it's the same false argument they've used for carbs>insulin resistance, or saturated fat>cholesterol.
After completely avoiding fructose for 3 months, even fruit, I eventually broke down and ate one of those melon blend tubs (no sugar), and I got an instant burst of energy. Regardless of what they say about all the "great stuff" in fruits, it is most likely the fructose that is the active ingredient. It has unique properties, and we cannot dismiss that people probably crave it for that reason. My point is, if someone does well with fruits, it's probably because of the fructose, not in spite of it.
Wow Troy you off on that one and pretty much nailed it. Even if eating fruit forever is optimal it is a pretty silly way to live or try to live life.
It was cool that Freelea stopped by though, made these comments into some of the best for a while….
Things WAPF do are push for avoiding the refined sugars, refined vegetable oils, and consume highly nutritious unprocessed foods. They work with Price's work and use primitive cultures as an example of good health. They also help people to become more aware of what's in commercial foods and instead to go the organic route. If not organic to go with a farmer that has higher quality farming methods. Animals are taking better care of in these non commercial enterprises. WAPF warn against gmo, hormones, and other chemical injections given to animals. One popular health food is "soy" which WAPF warns against and instead recommends fermented soy with more nutrients available and without the anti-nutrients. They teach the chemistry of animal fats so we can understand that it's not the cholesterol causing the problems. I have found vitamin A to be present in fruits. Can't say if it's the right form of vitamin A. It's much more difficult to get a hold of K2 or D in plant foods. D is in some mushrooms but they're expensive. K2 is in natto but it not only tastes nasty, it may not be the beneficial form we are looking for. You'll get much higher amounts of CO-Q10 in organ meats than in plant foods. Plants may be a better source of magnesium but you'd still need to consume a lot to get enough so I'd recommend supplementation instead. WAPF pushes for the return of raw milk to our stores. They teach that when fat is removed from the milk mineral absorption is greatly reduced and calcification in the wrong parts of the body is the result. Eggs too have so many benefits and WAPF pushes for the importance of eating eggs.
I do agree that some of WAPF may recommend eating too high quantities of food for our modern lifestyle, especially animal meat. Sally Fallon herself teaches we shouldn't eat that much animal meat and instead should eat more of the fatty portions instead. One major drawback to WAPF is that they're not very physically active and so none of them have great looking physiques. Sometimes that can make a person that teaches about nutrition look far less credible. Obviously if you're not very physically active you don't need to eat nearly as much food. Many WAPFers consume over 3000 calories a day and could probably go as low as 2000 calories a day if they're women. Kevin Brown may be an exception to this whole fitness thing as I believe he is a personal trainer. However, he doesn't teach personal training in his books. He covers nutrition somewhat WAPF style.
WAPF does teach to eat a blend of foods such as raw milk, bone broth, eggs, organs, fermented foods, vegetables, and fruits. Some raw, some cooked. It's something anybody can work with. Far more reasonable an organization than most other nutrition advocates out there.
The hole argument of complete proteins is tricky. Generally it's said that mostly only animal based foods contain complete proteins. I did a comparison and found that certain plant sources were equal to if not higher in the essential amino acids than animal sources. Either the whole argument is BS or the non-essential amino acids play in constituting a complete protein. If this is the case their are no sources that back this scenario up. Maybe there is some other factor that constitutes a food being a complete protein that I or anybody else is unaware of. If anybody has something to add please share. Even a banana in higher quantities of the essential amino acids than an egg. Other than whey protein eggs are considered the most complete protein source.
However, only animal sources contain carnosine:
Here's one site that talks about complete proteins, this one says the same thing every other site says:
Here's the nutrition profile for a banana:
Here's a list of the other amino acids:
It doesn't list carnitine or carnosine in it.
Dear Freelee, you don't need any kind of "sound peer-reviewed scientific research" do demonstrate how bogus The China Study is (and based on what you said in this discussion I seriously doubt that you understand what sound scientific research and scientific method is).
It's all about statistics.
The China Study accumulated huge pile of data and then they run large number of correlation analysis on them. Most of the presented claims use p-values of 0.05-0.01, which is another way to say that there is one in 25 to one in 100 chance of the correlation being result of chance.
So let's say that the data you have are completely random (white noise) and you run 100000 analysis on them. With p-value 0.05 you will make 4000 "discoveries", all of them being flukes. If the data are not random, you will make even more discoveries, and some of them will be real. Unfortunately with such low p-values you have no way to tell fakes from real thing. Similar p-values, like 0.01, or even 0.001, are not really quantitatively different from 0.05, meaning that the ratio of fakes to real discoveries is still too high to render whole study useless.
This all is of course true only in idealistic scenario, when there was no other bias in methodology, which is highly unlikely. In fact, as Ioannidis demonstrated in his paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124), with this kind of methodology and using low p-values like 0.05, most of research claims are likely to be false.
And he did not even take into account, that the errors will spread through citations, and even without any biases, p-values of 0.05 will generate 50% error rate after only four generations, assuming each study cites two studies from previous generations (which can explain why medical research degenerated so quickly into complete chaos some sixty years ago).
So it's clear that whatever Campbell did has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with junk and enforcing particular ideology. It's sad that most people doing or citing some research do not understand these basic things about statistics and scientific method, and even more sad that people like you are using it to spread harmful pseudo-scientific cults.
By "four generations" I mean four generations of research papers, not researchers.
Freelee reminds me somewhat of the whole Michael Phelps thing (Breakfast: "Start with three sandwiches of fried eggs, cheese, lettuce, tomato, fried onions, and mayonnaise; add one omelette, a bowl of grits, and three slices of French toast with powdered sugar; then wash down with three chocolate chip pancakes."). I bet he feels even more vibrant and healthy than she does. Just without the whole obsessive compulsive eating disorder and delusions of grandeur.
Right on, very good points. So much of diet is driven by fear and pushes against one side to the detriment of the other. One good example is people in adrenal burnout being afraid of salt when their bodies actually really need it.
And yes, we need to be continually on guard against making false conclusions from associations.
too many calories -> weight gain
saturated fat -> cholesterol
carbohydrates -> insulin resistance
I agree with you on the cause of acne. I have observed with myself sugar does not have much effect. Eating peanut butter or restaurant foods seems to cause small blemishes to appear. I normally have really good skin and eat lots of dairy.
"The Anonymous post that talked about the "tough love" and "higher standards" was a well thought out and excellent post. Thanks."
I also agree that this has been a most entertaining post/comments section. Ah controversy!
Okay I'll start with the basic assumption work from there.
1. Raw food/vegan is the healthiest way too eat.
2. Raw food/vegan diets are impossible in that enough food is not available year round in most geographic areas.
3. People have somehow managed to exist in aforementioned places.
4. They have also successfully reproduced for thousands of years.
Wouldn't the cumulative negative effects of poor diet prevent these people from reproducing after a certain point?
We all already knew about The Biggest Loser and how awful it is. But here is an article from one of the contestants about how horrible it was including how her family had to have an intervention when she got back because her hair was falling out:
What is all this fruit going to do to the liver? What about effects on leptin resistance etc?
Hmmm, and what about the belief that you should only eat sugar/fruit with lots of fat, which I believe stems from the WAPF/Sally Fallon group? Why do they recommend that if such a combo makes insulin resistance worse?
Are we saying that IF we are having metabolic issues, we should avoid the combo of fat and fruit, or always avoid it?
And back to the whole starch and fat thing – say we're still healing, do we want that combo (HED style) or avoid that combo? I have to say that eating HED, I suddenly have a huge belly, like I'm 5 months pregnant, and it's neither comfortable or pretty. Doesn't Schwarzbein say that's a sign of insulin resistance? Which I didn't seem to have a problem with before. Is it because I'm healing and need to push through, or should I be worried? Temps are still all over.
And how do we eat high carb, low fat and still have it taste good? Starch is pretty blah without fat. JT, what do you do?
I think I preferred high fat and lower carb to this…
Since the post describes vegan and low fat diets, what about beans? I stopped eating them a while back to avoid the 'evil lectins' and to decrease flatulence, but switched back big time in the past few weeks. I did this to get up to 4-5000 kcal/day to maintain my body weight and didn't feel that well when I was eating a bunch of potatoes, white rice and fat for extra calories. I avoid kidney beans and some others but eat plenty (30+% of kcal) of black beans and adzuki beans. I have noticed the following:
decreased body fat to <10% from 15%
increased muscle mass and strength/endurance
better recovery from workouts
more energy, physical and metal throughout the day
increased and better bowel movements and of course more gas, which decreases if I take digestive enzymes
Matt, since you are touching upon topics that are shunned by others who eat meat, have you done anything on beans, the magical fruit?
Beans are a tough one. I like the nutritional profile of beans but it's hard to get past the lectins. Therefore, I eat them sparingly & instead eat quinua & especially buckwheat groats.
But I think if you don't go heavy on any of them & mix it up & your body tolerates them then go for it.
Why does everybody bitch and moan about how "starch doesn't taste good without fat," the implication being that it is difficult to eat high carb/low fat when one is eating starch. Nonsense! I say.
Yesterday I ate 55% carbs, 23% protein and 22% fat, and all my meals (with the exception of the egg whites -I am trying to gain a little muscle and egg whites are an inexpensive source of protein) were quite tasty.
Try Matt's "Potachos" http://180kitchen.wordpress.com/ with the ratio of 2 ounces of cheese, and a pound of taters with a liberal dose of salsa without any sour cream, for instance. That meal comes out to about 30% fat, and is quite tasty.
The thing is, starch can indeed be satisfying without boat loads of fat added to it. One just has to season and spice it up a little.
Oh, and apparently the Kitavans are satisfied on their high carb (starch) diet of roughly 70% carb, 20% fat and 10% protein.
I don't think lectins are something that should deter anyone from a food they tolerate.
Gluten and WGA are supposedly really bad if you listen to the paleo folks, but I've never met anyone who has really benefited from asymptomatic gluten restriction.
I, too, am suspicious of beans despite doing quite well on them.
They will sometimes cause minor issues for me in terms of gas/bloating but I have found that soaking them in warm water for about 24 hours before cooking them completely eliminates that issue. This method also has the added bonus of making a lot more nutrients available for absorption.
But, yeah, that whole lectin thing bothers me too.
Greensmu: Hmmm, good point.
I, too, am suspicious of beans despite doing quite well on them.
They will sometimes cause minor issues for me in terms of gas/bloating but I have found that soaking them in warm water for about 24 hours before cooking them completely eliminates that issue. This method also has the added bonus of making a lot more nutrients available for absorption.
But, yeah, that whole lectin thing bothers me too.
Greensmu: Hmmm, good point.
As a self proclaimed STARCHitarian,
I agree with you DML, I dont understand how others can't eat starch without a fatty topping. I find that if you eat enough protein with the starch source the "craving" to add fat to the meal disappears.
If you absolutely can't eat your starches "plain", try adding salt and other various spices or relishes to your meals.
Wow! Didn't think I was moaning, but anyhow. I don't consider 30% low fat, sorry. 10% is the number that I've seen thrown around, and when you're used to 60%, that's a huge drop. I eat coconut oil straight. But maybe I misunderstood how low is "low-fat". Years of following the FDA guidelines makes you suspicious of low fat! I know all the seasoning tricks… and never really enjoyed food as much as I do now. But maybe, like when I cut out all things sweet, it just takes a bit of taste adjustment.
Lorelei, I was more or less kidding around. It does take time to cleanse the palate from refined foods if you have recently cut them out. I do find that salt and protein make a big difference though in making starches flavorful.
Or it could be your Wisdom of the Body just wants you to consume more fat and thats what you need right now.
@ Riles: I eat plenty of starch too with very little fat, oatmeal with a bit of coconut oil added while cooking in water or potatoes which I coat very lightly in butter and sea salt. It is how I like my starch anyways, I don't do it for health just because I hate things that are swimming in fat…..
Starch needing to be drenched in fat to be tasty is a big time myth….
Riles, you weren't being harsh!
I've been real food, high fat for almost 2 years. Did really well with weight and energy until I majorly increased cooked starches, a la HED. My body LOVES fat, but I'm still having lots of adrenal issues. And doing both fat and starch is making me hugely pregnant looking. So. Looking for advice from you starchitarians! :)
I love meat, but am looking to cut it back too, since so much protein may be wrecking them adrenal glands more. Just can't seem to win! Breathitarian is my next choice if starchitarian doesn't work!
i'm of the opinion that if you increase starches, especially if fat is higher too, you have to increase activity level. You have to earn it.
I don't think that's always true. I think it depends on your history and the nature of the metabolic damage you are trying to recover from. Currently, I have to eat high-starch and high-fat just to stay above 170 lbs. at 6'3" and I have not done regular exercise in years, nor do I have a high-stress job, nor would I say I have healed my metabolism yet. In my case, I feel like what I actually have to earn are increases in activity level, which I can only justify *after* increasing fat and starch enough to keep my weight up at a healthy level.
Lorelei aka Hawaiigirl,
The bitching and moaning statement was directed at you in particular, but rather at people in general.
Indeed, that is a complex question: At what percentage can the consumption of any given macro-nutrient be considered low? I really think the answer is subjective, and determined by ones goals and views on nutrition, and which macro-nutrient is being discussed. I do agree with you however; 30% percent fat is not actually low*. I do think, nonetheless, that around 20% fat can -and should- be considered low.
Lorelei, far be it from me to offer advice on nutrition. There are many others on this board more qualified that I! Nonetheless, on the one hand, I think Riles is onto something: Perhaps more fat is just what you need right now. On the other hand, sometimes a drastic shift in ones diet is exactly what is needed to treat an imbalance. Ultimately, I think JT is right when he states that people need to get their hormones checked because only then are they armed with the information they need to properly proceed to treat said imbalance. Sadly, I am becoming more and more convinced that not all imbalances –hormonal issues, etc– can be rectified through diet; hence I think Dr. Poppy was onto something when she left a comment a couple of months ago that some people will need HRT to fully recover.
LOL! "Breathitarian is my next choice if starchitarian doesn't work!"
*By the way, in the Potachos example I gave, if one uses cheddar cheese and russet potatoes along with about 4 tablespoons of salsa, the calories total around 570, with roughly 28% coming from fat. Add 4 more ounces of potatoes and that brings calories to 680, and fat drops to about 23%. Bring in some salt and a little more salsa and the whole thing is still pretty tasty. Also, Riles is right: Protein really helps with the fat cravings, and, in my view, the overall taste of the meal. So how about a side of well marinated lean beef or jerky along with some corn or beans? Yum! The possibilities for delicious, low-fat meals are numerous. It is yet another vicious low-carb myth that the only tasty meals are those that are drowning in fat.
EEKS!! I meant the "bitching and moaning" was NOT directed at you in particular, but people in general.
You live in one of the best places in the world to do a low fat high carb diet. You have tons of fruit, and lots of asian food resources. I eat a typical asian diet. So it is based on rice with moderate amounts of meats and veggies. I am focused on aesthetics so I choose leaner cuts of meat to keep my fat low. If you know how to season your meats and veggies well then you will have a ton of flavor without fat. The only fat I ever add to my food is high quality ghee, but probably only get a tablespoon a day.
I also switched over from a high fat W Price type of diet, and in the beginning it was difficult not to add extra fat to everything. But now, I have no problem at all.
I think You are right, eating a high fat and high carb diet is the best way to gain bodyfat.
I disagree. I've been eating a high-fat, high-starch diet for a few months now (after lowish carb)and have put on surprisingly little weight (like less than 5 lbs), and my stomach is pretty flat. I honestly just go with what I crave, and if I avoid eating bread with lots of butter, etc. when I want it, I end up eating more later. I don't have super high-fat meals at every meal, but generally at least once a day. I try to keep it balanced. Some low-fat, some high.
My differences that may cause me to be okay on this diet: I'm 30 and thin to begin with. I've never been overweight but was exercise bullemic along with anorexic periods for years so I definitely screwed my metabolism. During my first few months of eating disorder recovery I pounded fat and sugar with almost no exercise (like HED kind of, I guess) and yes I put on weight (5-10 lbs, up from being underweight). So maybe that helped my metabolism. But after that, I had several more periods of resticting food.
Now several years later, following most of the principles of HED, I only pushed the food intake for a couple of weeks and then just ate to appetite. Seems to be working. I think people should just listen to their bodies and eat what they crave (as long as it's not junk). Keeping 0-6s super low is helping, too, and I think mainly just getting away from dieting and the whole mentality has done wonders for me. I feel healthier than I have in years. Just listen to your body, eat what it wants and it will work out.
Re: the health/nutritional concerns of a low fat raw vegan diet, I'll share an excerpt from my blog:
"When I told my doctor I had been a vegan for over a year the look of concern immediately appeared on her face.
Would my blood test confirm that I too was an anemic protein deficient veg-head that we so often hear about??
Well after 16 months of just raw fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and no animal products my blood panel, lipid panel, kidney & liver function, protein, ferratin [iron storage in body], fasting glucose, Vitamin D are all within the normal range!
Everything looks good, my B12 was actually off the charts (was taking B12 sublinguals for a while but haven’t had any in a few weeks). My doc said she rarely sees cholesterol at as healthy a level as mine. Potassium notably is within the normal range in spite of all the bananas I eat (sometimes 40 or more in a day). Protein, well see for yourself?"
(You can view my complete blood test results on my blog
Been feeling plenty good and no shortage of energy for exercising so I guess so far it's working for me (I was rather unwell 1.5 yrs ago). we'll see how it goes in the years to come.
Also I had a checkup with my dentist recently and he said my teeth were in excellent condition and I was doing a great job cleaning them. No signs of tooth decay or cavities to the eye or x-rays. So apparently it's not the high-fruit eaters who are keeping him in the tooth drilling business.
My dog is a vegan now too btw, he loves tofu, beans and cashew nuts. He likes cooked veggies also, always cleans his plate now. But I struggle to get him to eat raw veggies, aw well the oldest lived vegan dog Bramble was 27.. he certainly wasn't a 100% raw vegan dog yet he still did alright.
Thanks for sharing your experience. It must be very freeing having recovered from your EDs.
I do think it's a different story if you've been overweight or obese. It's easy to say "listen to your body," but when you've been obese and spent your whole life yo-yoing, eating high-fat and high-carb together will definitely put fat back on your body.
I gained 30 lbs on HED and was showing no signs of slowing down without intervention. My body wanted to bounce right back up to my all-time high weight before it sorted anything else out. Possibly even heavier – who knows. If it means I have to restrict fat a little while I continue to eat to appetite in order to not balloon anymore, then I'm more than willing.
I much prefer it to low-carb, frankly. I really missed rice and pasta and man, the Celt in me is diggin' on some serious potato action. I'm hitting that shit HARD right now and not gaining weight. The wholegrain versions, that is. Along with lots of veg and some fruit and small portions of leaner meat.
I don't feel like I'm missing anything, frankly. It's a lot easier to eat this way in a fat-phobic world than it was to do uber-high-fat with the stares and the gasps and what have you. I was getting tired of having to avoid buttering in public, due to the horrified reactions.
Hi Annabelle, I agree people are different, based on their dieting experiences, genetics, etc. Lower fat can definitely be healthy, too, although I do think making sure you don't feel deprived is important. I'm hyper aware of this after the ED. I still eat desserts a couple times a week, and I never gave up fruit. I just try to balance – same with the some high-fat, some low-fat meals.
Oh, one other thing I forgot to mention before: My hair was falling out earlier this year. Not sure if it was the lower-carb or cod liver oil. It started while I was doing both, and when I gave both up it stopped pretty quickly (like within a week or 2) and I've had a ton of regrowth. Definite sign of improved health!
"My dog is a vegan now too btw, he loves tofu, beans and cashew nuts. He likes cooked veggies also, always cleans his plate now. But I struggle to get him to eat raw veggies, aw well the oldest lived vegan dog Bramble was 27.. he certainly wasn't a 100% raw vegan dog yet he still did alright."
What the ____? Um Huh! Apparently not all vegans believe in "species specific diets."
The more interaction I have with people on extreme diets, be it vegan, LFRV, zero-carb –you name it– the more convinced I become that they do some sort of brain damage.
To the person of this site http://eatfruitfeelgood.com I think your cholesterol is too low. Especially your HDL.
Also the blood work you did, didn't distinguish between the different types of LDL.
There are many studies showing that low cholesterol increasing your risk of cancer and overall mortality.
Look at the Osaka study that looked at 12,000 people aged 40-69. Their findings showed that for every 34/mg/dl drop in blood cholesterol was associated with a 21% increase of overall mortality. Also low cholesterol levels were accompanied by a far greater risk of cancer death.
Though your triglycerides are pretty low and in good ratio to the HDL.
DML: you may be interested to learn that dogs are facultative not obligate carnivores, meaning although they have the anatomy and physiology that supports eating meat in quantity (sharp fangs/claws, very low stomach pH, short digestive tract, smooth colon, no need for dietary fiber for intestinal transit, ability to taste protein unlike humans, ability to process unlimited cholesterol and not suffer atherosclerosis/heart attacks unlike humans, etc.) they can go without meat and animal products entirely and do fine, whereas obligate carnivores like cats, weasels, ferrets must eat flesh in order to survive in the wild, they cannot survive on plant foods alone. like I said Bramble the 27 year old vegan dog (nearly 200 in dog years) was in the guiness book of world records (http://dogsinthenews.com/issues/0209/articles/020918a.htm), another dog Tykie was a vegan since 8 months old and lived to be 25 (http://www.tykieslonglife.com/news.php), dogs have been shown to do just and also suffer fewer health problems (infections, hypothyroidism, cancer, etc) eating vegan diets than the alternatives (http://www.helpinganimals.com/pdfs/Dog_Health_Survey.pdf), many dogs in great Britain during WWII subsisted primarily on potatoes due to rationing and did fine. So I can see no reason to conclude that a well planned and nutritionally adequate vegan diet is inherently unsafe or could only be the product of a 'brain damaged' mind.
I'm not interested in species specific diets btw, I'm interested in what works. This is not to say any animal can get away with eating anything and suffer not consequences, quite the contrary it seems.
@Amy-I used to be a vitaminaholic and took oodles of vitamins in the belief that if I had lots of vitamins, I would have uber-health. It didn't work out that way, LOL! But one thing that happened to me was that my hair started falling out and I couldn't figure out why (geez, I was taking a ton of vitamins!) until I read that one of the symptoms of vitamin A toxicity was hair loss. I stopped taking vitamin A and the hair loss stopped, but unlike your case, my thin spots never grew back. I had tried switching to a "whole food source" of vitamin A like cod liver oil and the hair loss starts pretty quickly. I can't say 100% that this was the case with you, but I would tend to lean towards the CLO being the culprit in your hair loss.
My, aren't you patronizing though?!
I am aware that dogs are facultative carnivores; I considered a degree in animal science before I settled for physics, so you are preaching to the choir.
I just find all the different rationales used to defend extreme diets to be very amusing. It was obvious you didn't care about "species specific diets" based on your original comment, and you just confirmed that. However, Freelee fell back on "species specific diets" and basic physiology as her ultimate defense. You, apparently, only care about what works. Amusing!
seems not all natural hygienists are so bullish about vegan diets:
The item on centenarian vegans particularly interesting
Adam: I appreciate your concern but at my age I ain't too worried about my cholesterol levels and ostensible associated risk for chronic disease, low cholesterol it seems is in general of concern for the elderly, not for younger folk:
"Under age 50 years, cholesterol levels are directly related with 30-year overall and CVD mortality; overall death increases 5% and CVD death 9% for each 10 mg/dL? Under age 50 years these data suggest that having a very low cholesterol level improves longevity?"
"After age 50 years the association of mortality with cholesterol values is confounded by people whose cholesterol levels are falling–perhaps due to diseases predisposing to death"
recent studies confirm that in the elderly total cholesterol decreases with age  (not due to slowly transitioning to a vegan diet apparently) and that these may indeed be "potential warning signs of occult disease".
so in other words in the elderly low cholesterol is a symptom of some underlying pathology, not the cause of the increased mortality risk.
If/when heart disease or other pertinent chronic health condition become a concern I'll look into what my ratio of large buoyant/small dense LDL might be.
 "Cholesterol and mortality. 30 years of follow-up from the Framingham study.", Castelli et al 1987.
 "Total, LDL, and HDL Cholesterol Decrease With Age in Older Men and Women" Ferrara et al, 1997.
 "Low total cholesterol and increased risk of dying: are low levels clinical warning signs in the elderly? Results from the Italian Longitudinal Study on Aging." Mariotti et al, 2003.
DML: that's interesting.
Anonymous: natural hygienists are across the board in terms of dietary philosophy. Veganism wasn't exactly in vogue amongst the current generation of cententarians, it certainly can't be concluded that the inclusion of animal products in their diet is the secret to their longevity else you'd expect there'd be more than 60,000 of them in a population of 300,000,000, that is the US. Donald Watson lived to be 95 so I don't think it'd be impossible for a vegan to live to 100, vegan dogs certainly are capable of living exceptionally long lives. Methinks in any case there's more to living a long life free of disease than just a diet, not to say you can live forever eating anything.
Oh, and I knew I guy with a border collie that was fed the standard fare who lived to 25. Imagine, if the dog ate a vegan diet, how long he would have lived. Why, he might have lived to 50.
The truth is, collies, border or otherwise, are known for their longevity. Wikipedia lists their average age as 12, but I know several people with collies who are around 15 to 17.
Bramble and Tykie are nothing more than anecdotal reports –they prove nor demonstrate nothing. All we really have is the word of their owners, and people can sometimes be a little…well emotional and inclined to exaggerate when it comes to their pets.
As for the PDF you linked: (http://www.helpinganimals.com/pdfs/Dog_Health_Survey.pdf, it too demonstrates nothing. I want to see a double blind study with dogs fed vegan/vegetarian diets, a standard diet, and a well-designed diet that mimics the way they actually eat in the wild.
Oh, and I knew I guy with a border collie that was fed the standard fare who lived to 25. Imagine, if the dog ate a vegan diet, how long he would have lived. Why, he might have lived to 50.
The truth is, collies, border or otherwise, are known for their longevity. Wikipedia lists their average age as 12, but I know several people with collies who are around 15 to 17.
Bramble and Tykie are nothing more than anecdotal reports –they prove nor demonstrate nothing. All we really have is the word of their owners, and people can sometimes be a little…well emotional and inclined to exaggerate when it comes to their pets.
As for the PDF you linked: (http://www.helpinganimals.com/pdfs/Dog_Health_Survey.pdf, it too demonstrates nothing. I want to see a double blind study with dogs fed vegan/vegetarian diets, a standard diet, and a well-designed diet that mimics the way they actually eat in the wild.
Dang it, another double post. My apologies. I am using Safari right now and it responds differently than Windows, leading me to think that the post hasn't been successfully submitted when in fact it has.
"We have NEVER met anyone in all the years we have been on this path who doesn't thrive on this lifestyle. "
Actually, Freelee, you have met many who do not thrive on this lifestyle. When they suffer from the negative effects of such a diet, you delete them from consideration by rationalising that they "must be doing it wrong". I think this is called "cognitive dissonance" and "confirmation bias". (I'm not a psychologist so perhaps someone who is can confirm if I'm using the right terms.)
Matt's willingness, even eagerness, to be confused is a mark of intellectual honesty IMO. As the NLP guys say, confusion is a really useful state…
You beat me to the punch with your discussion about statistics and peer reviewed research. It was pretty much what I was going to say, except I think you articulated it better. Good job!
Instead of posting what I was going to originally, I am going to copy and paste a lightly edited version of a comment I left on freetheanimal.com, under the post Metabolism & Digestion: A Key to Weight Loss & Health, Part II. (Metabolism & Digestion: A Key to Weight Loss & Health, Part II).
I think it is relevant to the discussion of peer reviewed research and is something that needs to be said to a candid world. Here it is:
As for ‘scientific peer reviewed? studies: I am a physicist and have worked in physics labs both as an undergraduate and then a graduate student for a sum of about 8 years. In that time I have seen at least 3 research papers published ?peer reviewed and everything? that had the data manipulated. Two of them only had minor manipulation done to them, and so the main flaw was that their conclusions seemed to have a lot stronger support than it actually did. The remaining one had significant manipulation done to it and the data did not originally support the hypothesis; so the data was ?fudged? with some fancy statistics and graphical manipulation until the data ‘supported? the desired conclusion. This paper ?on nanoparticles and cancer*? is now referenced by other researches as support for their own conclusions. And so a myth is born and perpetuated by the ‘scientific? peer reviewed process!
By the way, my experience is not unique to any ‘scientific? field, physics or otherwise. The recent ?Climategate? scandal is an eloquent demonstration of that fact.
Hence, I always read ‘scientific? papers with a healthy dose of skepticism.
In order for my skepticism to be assuaged somewhat, a research paper must meet the following criteria (the following not meant to be an exhaustive or comprehensive list):
-A reasonable confidence level must be used, especially if it is a paper on nutrition, or any other area of research that has multiple data points and variables that are not easily controlled in the lab. By ?reasonable confidence level? I mean something on the order of at least 5 sigma. Generally, anything lower means that researchers could have possibly manipulated the inherent noise in the data until the ?data? supports the result they want. This does not necessarily mean the researchers are being dishonest. Lots of other factors can come into play, such as confirmation or observer bias. [ Moreover, as Jay pointed out on this thread, one cannot tell the fake results from the real.]
-The study must have been properly designed. For now, I am not going to elaborate.
-Even if a study meets the above criteria, the results and conclusion presented therein must be supported by at least three other independent studies that have similar results and conclusions and that also meet the above criteria.
Lots of research in nutrition borders on being junk science because it generally fails to meet the first two criteria.
*I wish I could elaborate more about the research papers I mentioned. Two things hold me back: 1.) Respect for the researchers, whom I know and respect as bright, devoted, honest individuals, and; 2.) I have signed a confidentiality agreement regarding the methods and results pertaining to one of the papers.
The oldest dog ever I believe was 29 and not a vegan. like I said previously there is more to longevity than simply one's choice of diet. the point is if a vegan diet were inherently unsustainable/unhealthy/dangerous for dogs it would be unlikely that they'd be able to live unnaturally long lives doing it. It is fine that you do not believe that it is possible for a vegan dog to live that long but that does not mean that both owners were necessarily lying or exaggerating by 1 or 2 decades.
"I want to see a double blind study with dogs fed vegan/vegetarian diets, a standard diet, and a well-designed diet that mimics the way they actually eat in the wild."
great perhaps you could come up with the money for it, not too many people are interested in such things it seems, not much money to be made from such research unfortunately.
" It is fine that you do not believe that it is possible for a vegan dog to live that long but that does not mean that both owners were necessarily lying or exaggerating by 1 or 2 decades."
Actually, I never said that that I don't believe I vegan dog could not live that long. Heck, as long as it was receiving all the nutrients a dog needs, why not? In the end, I think whether or not an animal is receiving all the calorie energy it needs along with all its required essential nutrients is more important than the macro-nutrient composition of its diet.
Also, my point wasn't so much about the owners exaggerating or lying as it was about it being anecdotal reports with no way of independently confirming what the owners were saying.
That poor dog! As Bryne said, dogs have all the digestive and physiological "tools" to be best suited to eating meat and this is exactly what they do when they have the choice or are in their natural environment.
Your dogs seems to be doing fine, but I really cannot think of a good reason for feeding a vegan diet.
1) Your dog certainly isn't happier that way. Every animal thrives best on the diet it is best adapted to and just because dogs don't do well on conventional dog food (oh, the surprise) doesn't necessarily mean that a vegan diet is the best. So 2)Your dog is certainly also not healthier than it would be on a completely appropriate diet.
3) I can't think of any good ethical reasons. Regardless of whether you feed your dog meat or vegan food, animals will have to die for it. I would even argue that you are killing more animals with feeding your dog a vegan diet than you are if you feed them the usual food. Of course this can't be proven or disproven. The most sensible thing for the environment and the lives of other beings would be to not have a dog at all.
Now, I honestly don't even know why I am writing this. As long as your dog is doing fine, there probably isn't much of a problem with it. But I can't help but feel that the dog would be better of on a more "fitting" diet and am really wondering about the reasons why to feed a og a vegan diet. Seems counterintuitive to me.
Thanks DML, Riles and JT – I think I'm going to make the switch. Amy, I can eat high fat and fruit, high fat and protein, but high fat and starch is doing a serious number on me. I know it's not about weight, it's about metabolism… but I FEEL horrible being fat. If starch is what I need to fix the rest of me, then I guess I'll try cutting the fat. I'll reiterate that I can't afford the medical tests to know anything for sure (and I live in nowhere land w/out a Dr. I trust anyhow, so I've got to go on gut feelings, haha).
I've noticed that HED has done the following for me – I don't seem to bruise anymore, used to be a serious problem. Not constantly hungry anymore – high fat and fruit, I needed to eat often, high fat and protein, I was always starving, no matter how much I ate. Teeth seem stronger, excess fruit was causing tooth pain (but maybe that was the fat and fruit combo?), mouth isn't all mucky anymore.
But temps are still all over, and I feel exhausted – I think from being fatter than I'm used to!
About the vegan dog. I've heard it done, but it does seem like an ideological diet rather than a natural one. I just switched our dog off the "good" dry food to a raw meat and veggie diet. She's a 14 yo black lab, which is already considered ancient for her breed. She was awesome for her age before, but now she looks and acts like a 4yo dog. Lots of folks feed their dogs raw meat around here and swear by it for longevity and health. But my dog was doing fine before – she ate cheap dog food most of her life and she was a research animal, so you know she's had stress. I'm thinking good genes have to play a part in it! She's like the Gorske of the dog world!
So what does that say about us and all our diets? Going to the "natural" diet has definitely improved her health dramatically in her old age, but she outshone most dogs without that. Just like lots of people – the ones we hate, who tell us how they eat nothing but crap and they're just fine (like my hubby, ha). How much can we really control our health with all these permutations, beyond cutting out the fake food, of course?
I have to say too, as far as ecological factors go – our dog eats the same meat we do – which I can see chomping grass along the road where we drive. It's all natural, slaughtered here in town, no forest clearing to plant a monocrop or GMO soy being flown halfway 'round the world. And the cows and wild goats fertilize their own food. How cool is that?
Another question for you starchitarians – say you look in the fridge, and you're hungry, and you haven't planned ahead, and you're a girl (which means you can't wait 30 minutes for potatoes to boil, you gotta eat now!). And you're trying not to eat wheat. What do you eat? A hunk of cheese and a fried egg are fast… hell, I'll eat raw steak if I'm hungry. Is there a simple starchy food that's fast and that I'm being completely stupid and not thinking of? (Yeah, I'm hungry right now!). I guess there's fruit, but it doesn't seem to fill me up.
JT, I'm all about the coconut oil! I can eat the unrefined stuff straight! You'd think my thyroid would be screaming along by now.
"Just like lots of people – the ones we hate, who tell us how they eat nothing but crap and they're just fine (like my hubby, ha). How much can we really control our health with all these permutations, beyond cutting out the fake food, of course? "
You hate your husband?
Oh and about the thing to eat when hungry. My usual combination for that is some carrots with a bit of cheese. Not entirely low-fat, but for the most time I'm high starch low to moderate fat, so I don't care of that, you could of course eat no or just a tiny bit of cheese with it.
Only when he's telling me for the millionth time that day to quit spending money on real food because he eats all the junk (which is cheaper) and is healthy!
But carrots aren't starch unless cooked, I thought. Not terribly filling either. I just ate two. I guess you don't have to eat starch if you're hungry NOW.
How have you been doing, Mad? Are you taking iodine still?
Wow, the comments on this blog never cease. Ok, before I get caught up, I have a t-shirt suggestion.
EAT THE FOOD!
What d'ya guys think?
Yes Lorelei, according to Schwarzbein, which I just plowed through, raw carrots = non-starchy vegetable, cooked carrots = starch. Same with tomatoes.
Bryne, I'm not understanding the reason behind your initial comment. Are you just letting us know that you, personally, and your dog, are thriving on an 80-10-10 diet? I don't think that many of the folks here have any trouble believing that some people may thrive on that diet.
What I believe, though, is that all people cannot thrive on the diet. Are you implying that all people will thrive on an 80-10-10 diet?
And what do you say to those who appear to be following the 80-10-10 regimen in a textbook manner, yet who cannot thrive? I was one of them, textbook for a solid two years, yet I ended up with some pretty severe issues including skin problems, hair loss, tooth decay, and general weariness. I really did follow the program and I wanted desperately for it to work for me. When I changed my diet to Matt's HED program, my body felt this incredible happy sigh, and all of the problems except for the lingering tooth issues which require dental work, abated. I must have been missing something following 80-10-10, yet I ate in excess of 3000 fruit cals a day from a variety of fresh, ripe (always ripe) fruits.
I'm not bashing you or 80-10-10 at all. I can see that some folks are thriving on the program and I wanted to thrive like them. I didn't, but when I simply said that, and asked for help, I was bashed by many in the 80-10-10 crowd and ended up leaving the community, feeling like a total failure.
I don't know why it seems to work for some and not for others. I did not supplement, and I know that some do, do you? Maybe one needs to supplement in order to make that program work? What do you think? I remember that Harley supplements B-12 and others supplement D etc. I'm just wondering out loud, not pointing fingers here. It has bothered me for a while why 80-10-10 is one person's salvation and another's pit of fire.
I look forward to your response. I have always enjoyed your posts and feel that you are a reasonable and thoughtful person.
Anonironicus (been one of the "Anonymous" here but decide I need a formal Anony handle)
Hmmm, interesting to hear that uncooked carrots aren't considered a starch source. I like them better cooked anyways, but I think they are a nice convenience snack.
About the iodine and how I'm doing:
Well, I don't take iodine anymore. Don't really see a reason to do so. When I started taking it I suspected I could have some thyroid issues which was pretty much bogus I have to say. I still think that iodine supplementation can be a powerful tool, especially to for heavy metal and halide detox. I didn't even stop taking it consciously, but rather I forgot taking it and it did not seem to make much of a difference, so I didn't continue with it.
Apart from that, things have been going up and down a bit lately. All in all I have been recovering quite well. But two months ago or so I got bitten by a tick. After pretty much ignoring that for some time I experienced some symptoms that are typical for lyme disease. I know what I'm talking about because I already had that last year. However the experiences I made with antibiotics and the hospital last year weren't really positive, so I decided to try and go for a natural healing route. After trying some things I found a herb which seemed to work pretty well and my symptoms almost vanished again. Until last saturday, where I was on a birthday party and drank much more alcohol than I usually do. That totally smoked my immune system (at least temporarilly) and the symptoms came back with a vengeance. But as I said, I think I already found the right herbal approach to combat that and the symptoms have noticeably decreased again. I am still not sure whether to pay the doctor a visit or not. My natural approach seems to work quite well and I would hate taking antibiotics, because I think that will only mess up my gut flora and in turn decrease the power of my immune system, which easily could make everything worse if the antibiotic treatment wasn't completely effective. However, Lyme disease is certainly not something to take easy, because that stuff can become very, very nasty.
Well, that's that. That stupid infection certainly has (temporarily) diminished some of the gains I made, but apart from that, things seem to go fine. Better energy levels (I actually am able to go out and party through the night, without suffering from the aftermath for too long), weight gains seems to have stopped, I've made some decent strength gains in the gym, mood is better and so on.
Oh, and another thing about 80-10-10.
It's really a shame that 80-10-10 seems to be strictly vegan. Because I think the simple inclusion of some animal foods (doesn't even have to be meat, I think eggs and dairy would suffice) would make that diet so much more healthful and while it probably still wouldn't be the healthiest diet in the world, people would probably do much better on it and have less "degeneration" going on. And all this mostly because of naive, shallow ethical reasons. What a shame.
Well, those are just my two cents.
"…say you look in the fridge, and you're hungry, and you haven't planned ahead, and you're a girl (which means you can't wait 30 minutes for potatoes to boil, you gotta eat now!). And you're trying not to eat wheat. What do you eat?"
This made me LOL. I'm so with you, being a girl, myself, who also gets face-punchingly hungry with no warning and who is also avoiding most gluten (for now). I've learned that I have to plan ahead. That's the only difference. In a pinch, I find bananas pretty satisfying, as far as fruit goes, and they're instant. They're a good tide-you-over snack while you're waiting for food to cook. Also, I found some baked corn tostadas that are all natural and have no added junk. Those with some salsa are also a good snack while you're waiting. But yeah, be prepared.
The thing I find most frustrating is the lack of food that you can find on the go. I have to bring food with me wherever I go, now. I literally bring whole grocery bags of food with me to work every day, rather than be stuck without enough. The only restaurant food I can safely eat is a big bowl of pho at my local vietnamese resto. Also, I get brown rice sushi that I'm almost positive has no sugar in the rice. I just go ahead and eat the soy sauce – I haven't noticed any gluteny problems from it. But you could bring your own tamari.
@Will, that's very interesting. Considering how much the WAPF loves CLO, I thought for ages it couldn't be what was causing my issues. I think some people probably just need less vit. A. Although I still eat liver every week or so and that seems ok. It's things like this that make me listen to my own body more.
Honestly that's why I didn't totally stuff myself on HED or give up fruit. Just didn't make sense to me, though I liked most of the principles. And, like the others, I didn't want to get fat. I figured I could get positive effects without being extreme about eating this way, and I have! I just want to eat normally at this point in my life.
madMUHHH said: "It's really a shame that 80-10-10 seems to be strictly vegan. Because I think the simple inclusion of some animal foods (doesn't even have to be meat, I think eggs and dairy would suffice) would make that diet so much more healthful and while it probably still wouldn't be the healthiest diet in the world, people would probably do much better on it and have less "degeneration" going on. And all this mostly because of naive, shallow ethical reasons. What a shame."
My thoughts exactly. Actually reading this post and doing some other research has really had me craving fruit, lol. I'm thinking of doing something like 80-10-10 (though probably more like 70-20-10) with carbs coming mostly from fruit, and some raw dairy and good eggs on the side. My body's really not craving meat at all right now, so I figure I'll make a couple changes and see how things pan out.
You know, the best thing about not being caught up in diet dogma is that you can change the way you eat any time without feeling like a schmuck or a failure. Changing things up is fun, and I'm starting to think it's healthier to do things that way. Kinda fills in the any deficiencies from following the same diet for too long. Hoorah for dietary confusion! ;)
And for all who may be curious, for the past few days I've been eating higher starch/lower fat, 2300-2400 calories a day while being moderately active; we're talking about 400+ carbs/day. So far no weight gain (no inches gain either). There goes the carbs-make-you-fat theory. :D
Like Freelee I initially lost about 30 pounds when I went vegan, and I tried so hard to stick with it even though I started developing health problems about 7 years later. From what I've read about other's experiences (including those on beyondveg.com) the 6-7 year mark is when most stop thriving.
What I find however, and have experienced personally, is that those who lose a lot of weight on these vegan diets develop a severe preoccupation with food or eating disorder. At least this has been my experience although what makes Freelee happy is her business.
What were the symptoms? Did you have any epidermal reactions at the bit site?
Tezza, in finance that would be called survivorship bias. Usually used in refence to performance metrics where failed/closed funds/managers are not included in the historical performance record. Thus artificially inflating the returns of said index/composite. I think that is similar to what you are talking about.
It is a damn shame that 80-10-10 is strictly vegan. The success rate of it would be greatly improved without such a proclamation.
Great comments. Great point about low cholesterol = good, falling cholesterol in the elderly = potentially bad, depending on the reason for the drop
I too have been thinking about vegetarian dogs, and how this really points to the great flexibility in diet as long as nutrient and calorie needs are met.
Hope to hear more from you in the future.
This is exactly why I'm re-examining the HED. I think most of the benefits you have experienced were from increasing calories and reducing the fruit/fat combo. in your diet. The drawbacks you've felt are most likely caused by eating too much fat in a hypometabolic state. When metabolism is low, fat is not metabolized very well on a high-carb diet. It only becomes properly metabolized once mitochondria has increased, but often potbellies emerge (like amongst Ancel Keys's starvation subjects) before that occurs, which nobody wants.
So I'm asking whether it's better for getting the benefits of HED without the fat gain risk if more carbohydrate displaces more fat. This would also free people up to consume more fruit, which is great for increasing the carb/fat ratio – as fruit doesn't need any added fat to be palatable. Starch often needs at least a little fat – although rice is pretty damn good wihout it.
Beans are fine. I used to eat them 3 times per day when I was a vegetarian. But then I started cooking them without soaking first and developed severe digestive pain. Still to this day beans give me some pretty good pain. I'm definitely over them. I don't see any reason to avoid them, but very large quantities increases the risk of eating them I suppose.
Freelee is right when she states that the Weston A. Price Foundation purports many myths that aren't well supported. They don't do this to support the meat industry, but because they have a pre-sworn idea that the information of Weston A. Price was the answer to all of humanity's ills. They peruse around looking for confirmation of that belief, and when you snoop around for supporting data of a pre-conceived hypothesis, you are dooomed. Price never did this. Price took the opposite approach.
Cod liver oil sucks.
Helluvah explanation for why modern science has become a clusterf$%# in the last 60 years.
Oh and Drooo-
Thanks for the Biggest Loser link. Classic. You can count me in on being a big supporter of that lawsuit.
No, my skin did not show any reactions. In fact, symptoms of lyme disease are said to be quite diverse, some people say that it can mimick pretty much every disease there is. I don't know what to think of that, though I think what kind of symptoms you have mainly depends on the weaknesses you already have and what part of your body offer the least resistance, so I guess there is some truth to that.
The reason that makes me believe it is Lyme disease, is that I am experiencing a lot of the symptoms, which are very typical for Lyme and which I already had last year when it was confirmed that I had the disease:
– Increased heart rate and clearly noticeable heart beating
– Sometimes some of my muscles were twitching without any reason, this pretty much has subsided again
– Increased headaches and mental fogginess, though I still had some minor mental foginesss from my low-carb recovery before that
– Slight knee pain every now and then
Apart from that I have also noticed a decreased tolerance to sunlight. I am not entirely sure how you call it in English, but I actually had to stay in bed for a whole day, because being out in the sun somehow made me feel totally dizzy and sick. This is also improving, but still noticeable.
Hey Matt, do you beans out of a can would be fine? I'd imagine that they have been soaking for awhile and I'd only have to worry about potential BPA. Pan-fried black beans with white rice would be tasty, no fat needed.
I prefer canned beans, as they have been thoroughly soaked, cooked, and almost totally autolyzed – much more digestible than any homemade beans I've ever made.
@Elizabeth, I'm been thinking similarly lately, and am thinking that this sounds a lot like PALEO – a low-meat paleo?
I'm not feeling the protein either lately, and I've never had a problem with fruit…
yeah.. im pretty sure anthony colpo destroyed the china study…
@Gazelle: Yeah, sort of a high-carb paleo approach. Only I'll be doing raw milk which many would argue isn't anywhere near paleo. But that's fine with me. I love raw milk, and I do very well on it. Plus from what I understand, for a protein it mixes well with fruit digestion-wise. I think such a diet would be super-easy on digestion and relatively complete nutritionally, at least in the short term.
Hello smoothies! Frozen sliced banana and milk, blended, makes the most delicious banana milkshake, ever.
@Elizabeth, dairy – especially raw – seems more and more accepted by the paleo crowd, so I'm gonna consider it Paleo…
I think it was actually JT who said here once that fruit and milk are the only foods designed by nature to be food!
@Annabelle: I'll probably be relying heavily on that recipe, too, considering bananas are the cheapest fruit I can buy if you calculate dollars for calories. I'll probably throw some frozen oj concentrate in for flavor sometimes, too, though that's not fresh so probably not even close to ideal.
@Gazelle: It sounds pretty ideal on some level. And it definitely sounds ideal to my tastebuds at this point. As much as I love my potatoes, the meat/starch combo is just not very appealing to me right now. Milk and fruit, though, sounds downright awesome.
I have been enjoying this approach of high carb (fruit and starch), moderate protein, and low fat. In regards to starch though, I tend to favor sweet potatoes because I think they are more nutrient dense than jasmine rice (my rice of choice). Do you think this is sensible? I enjoy both but sometimes I see rice as just glucose but it would be nice to feel good about eating it. I'm trying to eat as much nutrient dense stuff as I can to get the most out of the calories that I eat (trying to lean out). Thanks!
I may have had Lyme disease for years. I have the same symptoms such as MadMuhhhh. Especially the muscles randomly twitching which I've noticed for 6 months now. Strange though that all these symptoms randomly appear and disappear. Sometimes I can handle sunlight, sometimes I get tired and groggy when around it. I do notice that I am most energetic when the sun goes down.
One topic I question that WAPF teaches is that nutrients are far better digested from animal sources. You can get all the vitamins and minerals from plants. Just consume Kale in high amounts, have it with vinegar and 10% of the K1 converts into K2. That's 1000mcg of K1, and so 100mcg gets converted to K2. Though you can also get all of your vitamins and minerals from just this short list of animal sources: cod liver, raw milk, eggs, bone broth, organ meats, and meat/fat. You don't even have to have that great quantity of these items to get them either. The question is do the plants not have the optimal absorption and so should I look to animal foods as my primary source of these nutrients? Are there other factors that are in play I'm not away of that play into this concept? Even if this were true WAPF doesn't back this up with much research. It does point to primitive tribes and to modern civilization 100 years ago who relied more so on animal food. For vitamin A the form found in animal food may not be in great enough quantities for our needs in plant foods. I'm not sure where I got that information about K1 conversion so it may or may not be true. Weston A. Price Foundation has shown that people thrived on both high fat and low fat diets. The low fat diets were around 20-25% fat as intake, just like the Kitavans. That's what farmers used to eat 100 years ago in the USA when they did hard labor. Maybe the fat soluble vitamins absorb more effectively from animal sources because they're connected to fats that are closer to our DNA structure than that of plants and their DNA structure.
The vegan dog lived as long as it did because it consumed raw foods. When they usually eat meat it's been cooked. Animals thrive on fresh raw food. So a dog would thrive on raw food whether it was from plant or animal source.
Maybe my sources are wrong. I've heard if you lose all that weight at once it's mostly muscle. That and it suppresses your metabolism. But I've seen the people she's trained on the biggest loser and they did appear to lose the weight and keep their weight down for the most part. If they gain it back it was for emotional reasons, not physiological reasons. They train strong and hard. They become more effective even with all the weight loss/calorie restriction happening all at once. Maybe this information I came across is all BS.
I think this strategy only works for people that are above 180 pounds or women looking to get down to 140 pounds. This is for people that are looking to lose 100 pounds quickly. You won't develop a muscular build and will likely just become skinny. If you're looking to lose 30 or 40 pounds it's better to exercise and feed your muscles the sufficient calories. Eat the amount of calories for your goal weight and goal lean body mass. You only need an hour to 4 hours a week of exercise.
Jillian Michaels What do Losing It families eat: I basically put them the Master Your Metabolism diet. Then I set the women's calories at 1200 intake & men's cal intake at 1600 daily. I have the guys burning 4,500 cals a day and the women burning 3,500 cals a day.
So what do we think about the WAPF push to eat fat with all things sugar and fruit? Their reasoning sounds good, so poke some holes in it for us Matt.
When I was a raw-ish foodie, I ate loads of fat (nuts)/fruit with no weight problems. It seems to be the cooked starch that's giving me the gut. But I was coming off SAD when I went raw, I think no matter what diet, you have to do better at first when coming off SAD.
Just had a banana/skimmed raw milk smoothie for breakfast, I had to smile when I read y'all were thinking of those. But I add raw cacao and carob, and cinnamon and eggs. And vanilla. And poi. It IS Hawaii after all.
Husband is out hunting bananas right now. Gotta love free food.
Mad, get better! Lyme scares me.
Annabelle, I hear you about bringing food everywhere. It drives my husband crazy that I plan everything around what, where, and when to eat – either we haul loads of food (3 hungry kids) or we go home to eat. I've found that I don't even enjoy the food at most restaurants anymore. Tastes horrible to me. There is one Thai place that is into a slightly more natural approach than most, so we go there now and then.
Oh, and shoot, just got this in my inbox, about how life has changed in the last 100 years –
The Five leading causes of death were:
1. Pneumonia and influenza
4. Heart disease
I thought we didn't start seeing heart disease and stroke until the 1920's? Who's doing the lying? Who knows, without me researching it all myself?
There are some exceptions of vitamins and minerals that you can only get optimal absorption from animal food that WAPF has backed up with research. That's iron, b12, and zinc. I haven't heard anything from them on the subject of fat soluble vitamins in plants vs. animal sources for optimal absorption.
That article from Anthony Colpo was enlightening. Carnitine, Taurine, EPA and DHA are somewhat deficient in a vegan diet. Carnosine is almost completely deficient.
I had a bad allergy reaction while camping this last week-end. I blamed all the fruit I was eating. Maybe I should have been looking at my fat more closely, probably.
I have always backed JT on one point and that is the high carb for endurance sport idea. I know I screwed myself up by doing endurance sports without enough carbs and while pushing protein. My body was craving carbs like mad and I was in denial. I also experienced huge performance gains when I gave up this crazy way of eating and started just eating the carbs.
So Matt how do you hike with all that fruit. Isn't it kind of heavy and hard to keep fresh?
"The only restaurant food I can safely eat is a big bowl of pho at my local vietnamese resto. "
I love me some pho, but I hate to break it to you that most pho recipes have some sugar in them. If you are trying to go completely sugar free, stay away from pho. It is one of the best foods though to get in a restaurant, I think. It's gotta be made from scratch, including bone broth and just sipping the broth gives me an energy boost. Since the amoung of sugar in a huge batch of pho is small, it's probably not enough to worry about.
Annabelle, I've been dealing with this by bringing milk with me as much as possible. I'm still replacing a meal or two a day with it.
"Jillian Michaels What do Losing It families eat: I basically put them the Master Your Metabolism diet. Then I set the women's calories at 1200 intake & men's cal intake at 1600 daily. I have the guys burning 4,500 cals a day and the women burning 3,500 cals a day."
Then I take them out, kneel them in a ditch and shoot them in the back of the head.
Wondering about this carb/sugar/starch gray area: corn syrup. Not HFCS that has been chemically and physically manipulated for unnatural sweetness, but the kind that comes in a Karo bottle. The ingredients say only corn syrup, vanilla and salt. When I Wiki-ed it, it says that this form of corn syrup is 100% glucose.
So is having some corn syrup in a pie comparable to eating an ear of two of corn, or several potatoes? Or does the processing it takes to make the corn into syrup turn it into Frankenstein? I wonder.
I don't like the current fad of exercising more and eating less. The aesthetic women shoot for isn't all that attractive. I do not like intermittent fasting. It's easy to eat less calories and to lose weight. You can go 40 days without eating anything and survive, Aajonus Vonderplanitz is proof of that. Models go for the range of 100 pounds at 5'9". Models and actors choose anorexia to meet their goals. I feel it's far more attractive for women to build muscle for a proportionate physique and maintain a healthy level of body fat to keep those attractive curves, butt, and breasts. Why get breast implants and spends hours a week exercising when you can just boost your metabolism and naturally carry well proportioned breasts? When you carry more muscle on your body it boosts your metabolize and so you don't need to force yourself to eat less food. A highly attractive women, I mean smoking hot, can thrive on a 2500-4000 calorie a day food plan. She can be within 135 pounds to maybe even up to 160 pounds. In those rare occasions where she's really tall and carries a bigger frame she can be over 200 pounds and look smoking hot. I wonder why this isn't taught or pushed in today's society.
For men I'm sure women would find us more attractive if we build big solid physiques in the 170-220 pound range. You'd have more energy, better moods, better self image, and be more effective with physical labor if that's what you do. If you're busy with lots of work outside all day it's good to eat high calorie healthy shakes so when you come home you still have plenty of energy to spend with your friends and family. Shakes, ice cooler with ready made food, or stop and get something to eat at a healthy restaurant. I don't see this kind of stuff happening myself.
Some people may not even need to exercise. Simply eating more nutritious food, getting away from yoyo dieting, and eating a balanced amount of calories for their target bodyweight/lean body mass/daily activity level is all that it takes.
If being skinny is a apart of who you are then go ahead. The other reason a person may want to be light weight is if they were into a sport where being lighter weight was advantageous. Maybe the person that is light weight is completely comfortable with eating little food. But I do feel my message applies to many people who go out of their way to eat less food and yet always have those hunger cravings or suppress their happiness.
Just to give an example there was a girl that was incredibly attractive at 180 pounds. She chose to lose another 40 pounds and she didn't look as good. There's too much emphasis on losing the weight and there should be more emphasis on developing a good self image. Instead of looking at how much weight look for their body fat percentage. People might gain weight but that can be good because it could be that they gained muscle which works well for their aesthetic.
A high fruit and tuber carb diet is probably okay as long as it is supplemented with some protein and fat sources like fish, organs, dairy, etc.
Do the backpacking book! Doooo it! Also the cover needs to be a picture of you looking ripped holding a bunch of bananas.
"Uh, who said anything about "retoxifying" again? You are imposing your assumptions about diets on somebody else and twisting what they are actually saying"
Not that I want to argue her case, because I think veganism is dangerous wacko shit, but I think she means retoxifying by eating animal products again. Because animals are, you know, toxic.
@Jenny: Yeah, there's a bit of sugar in the broth of the pho that I order, but very little, from the taste of it. It doesn't taste sweet at all. And for $4, how can you turn that down! I also get the salad rolls and use my own GF hoisin sauce as a dip (also has sugar). Whoopsie! ;)
I just happened to weigh myself this morning after a couple of weeks on low-fat. Not sure why, since – boys, close your eyes – I'm on the precipice of getting my period and am not usually one who enjoys torturing myself. I was actually down 3.5 lbs from the last time I weighed myself. Waist and hips are down 1/2-inch, too! And that's factoring in PMS bloating! All this while snarfing down carbohydrates to my heart's content. Shocking, I know.
p.s. Girls, I highly recommend letting yourself stuff yourself on carbs while enduring PMS/TOM. It makes it a WAY happier experience. I never really let myself do that before – at least not without some serious guilt attached, which would completely ruin the fun. But seriously. Giant vats of pasta and banana milkshakes coming out my ears.
@Annabelle: My experience has been similar. Raw milk makes a huge difference in my PMS symptoms–months I go without it because of supply issues my PMS is awful. This month I've been doing higher carb and PMS was much improved. Barely any symptoms until the day or two before. Usually I have about 7-10 days of symptoms. Oh, and congrats on the loss! ;)
Here's an article I found that talks about juicing fruit. They say it's not a healthy choice. If you do juice with fruit you would only want to do it to improve it's flavor. blueberry and bananas do a great job. Stevia works well.
What Should I Juice?
Never juice fruit — the resultant juice is way too high in simple and available sugars, and their absorption in the gut is no longer mediated by the cell walls of the fruit, since they have been ruptured by the juicing process. On the other hand, if you must drink fruit juices, fresh raw fruit juices will be a lot healthier for you than juices which have pasteurized, processed, and bottled or canned! Having given the above caveats, I do confess to occasionally juicing a small amount of organic orange juice as a treat — perhaps once every few months I may make about 4 or 5 ounces of organic orange juice in a citrus juicer. Just as with fruit, be a bit cautious when juicing root vegetables which are high in simple sugars — the two best known examples are carrots and beets. While each of these is a wonderful veggie to juice, and has wonderful effects upon the body,, you will probably wish to limit the total quantity of these two veggies to less than 30% by volume of juice,with the reminder greens. You can increase this quantity if you also consume a bit of fat with your veggie juice.
Yeah, carbs are kind of awesome. I think about all the times in my life I craved them, and in hindsight there was great intelligent reason for me to be craving them (lost lean mass, tons of endurance exercise…).
Now I just eat the hell out of them, and I can't believe how satiated I am, or that I can lose fat rapidly eating 800 grams of carbs per day. That is, however, how it plays out.
I have written a backpacking book. Needs a nutrition update though. It's a good laugh…
As for trail snackity, I've been bringing dates. The other day I hiked 19 miles and ate 1 pound of medjool dates and 6 bananas along the way (1800 calories).
For overnight trips, I'll probably be bringing more dried starches (oatmeal and raisins, pasta, bread), fat (mac nuts, coconut oil, butter), but still lots of dates for midday eating.
Most recommend eating fat with carbs to slow absorption of the carbohydrate into the bloodstream.
Sounds good in theory, but in actuality blood glucose and insulin levels go a lot higher when you eat fat and carbohydrate together vs. carbohydrate by itself (not purely carbohydrate, even most fruits are 5% fat and 5% protein).
It might slow absorption, but it won't make your blood sugar peak lower.
I too used to eat mostly nuts with fruit and dried fruit when I first lived in Maui. My physique was pretty pathetic. Very little muscle and more body fat than it had prior.
Without the nuts, I would lose both fat and lean tissue. I now believe this was mostly due to not eating sufficient calories. This also led to hypoglycemic swings and constant hunger – no longer issues when I have high-carb/low-fat meals or days.
Wow Matt, 800g of carbs! What does a recent day of eating look like for you? Just curious.
I've been really fruit-heavy most days, with the exception of yesterday which was a big protein, fat, and calorie re-feed post resistance exercise (2 half-pound burgers and a large pork and rice burrito).
Most of my carbs have come from bananas, mangos, dates (while hiking), apples, watermelon, and pulpy fresh orange juice.
Anybody know which of Matt Stone's blog articles have the most comments and which blog article it is?
Doug Graham doesn't support a fruitarian diet, by a weight basis, equal if not more vegetable matter than fruit. He also said on rawkinradio that his daughter had a "crumbly tooth" but that the dentist said it was normal.
So your reviewing Anthony Colpo this summer, have you read his article on the China Study?
Your explanation of the China study seems to rest solely on the book I.E. animal protein was associated with cancer incidence in the China Study. Original monograph showed nothing of the sort. Did you look at the back of the book to see what Campbell based his claims on?
You said that you tried "sprouted quinoa" in a past post, and that its "definitely not made for human consumption", were you eating it sprouted or germinated?
Why do you you imply that there is something negative in eating animal derived purines and fruit together?
I noticed that someone had commented in a previous post that uric acid is connected to joint pain and migraines. To which you responded "I'm certainly intrigued by it – knowing that humans do not produce uricase enzymes to avoid uric acid buildup like carnivores and many other omnivores." This is akin to saying "humans do not have cellulase to break down cellulose" when the bacteria in our intestinal track can break it down, likewise, there is another metabolic pathway that the human body deals with purines from animal flesh.
Humans avoid the overproduction of uric acid in the face of increasing dietary purine intake from meats by decreasing the activity of xanthine oxidase. As the purine precursors, GMP and AMP, are ultimately converted to uric acid there are a couple of key intermediary steps along the way. AMP is converted to hypoxanthine and then to xanthine and finally to uric acid. GMP is converted to xanthine and then to uric acid. Both the conversion of hypoxanthine to xanthine and xanthine to uric acid are regulated by an enzyme called xanthine oxidase. Compared to, for example, bovine animals, xanthine oxidase activity is almost 100 times lower in humans.
Why do you write that fruit gives better performance results? What do you mean by performance results?
I believe that was the "Hamburglar's Metabolism."
The fruit/meat combo. was probably an error. Just like Richard Johnson recently revealed, a diet with fruit was able to lower uric acid just as effectively as a diet with no fruit at all – as long as refined sugar was out of the equation.
However, I once suggested to a friend of mine that had had a heart attack to go on a low-carb diet. He immediately developed severe gout. Oops.
I too experience more physical aches and pains with a high meat diet. I've witnessed the anti-inflammatory effects of a non-meat diet many times, so I am certainly open to ideas surrounding uric acid, purines, fructose, etc.
I have not read Colpo's China Study bashing.
When I ate quinoa sprouts, I soaked them until they sprouted little tails and ate them. I guess this would be germinated, not fully into the sprout stage.
Okay, I just read Colpo's review of the China Study. Well done, as usual. Campbell is pretty easy to slay. The most powerful message was simply that epidemiological data is useless. According to the results of the China study, we should all try to increase our intakes of alcohol, cigarettes, white rice, and soy sauce.
Clearly a broader and more comprehensive perspective is in order to really get to the bottom of what a person can do to improve his or her health.
Read these when you get a chance:
This information states that simple carbs, even from fruits, are harmful for our immune systems. According to this, starches aren't any near as harmful and our body can still fight bacteria effectively. Keep in mind the honey used was pasteurized and wasn't likely the cold packed honey which may not cause these problems. I think raw milk and tropical fruits also wouldn't cause any problems but I can't say for sure.
That's one very simple perspective. By the same token, carbohydrates are most effective – particularly those which break down to glucose, in raising leptin levels. Leptin is like the grand high priest of our overall immune system function and capability.
In addition, cutting carbohydrates raises cortisol and suppresses the immune system long-term.
The real issue seems to be that simple carbs hit the blood stream way too quickly and so it affects the body badly. However, with starch it's conversion to glucose is a slower process so it doesn't have the same high level of detrimental effects. You get the same benefits of raising leptin without the other problems associated with simple carb intake. The Kitavans consumed mostly starches. They were fairly lighter in weight like most of the tribes compared to us so their carb intake didn't really need to be that high. I question if we were meant as a species to weigh over 180 pounds. I would think people that are naturally bigger and have bigger people in their blood line will likely handle the effects of weighing more than most other people that weigh more now in days.
Are you talking about this study?
First of all the study doesn't tell us what type of training regimen the people are following. It also said these problems occurred during the training and not during other times of the day. Depending on what you do during training your body may require more carbs. Another flaw with the study is that they don't tell you how many calories the people consumed or how much they weighed. It sounded like the people didn't have enough calories and that they didn't have enough carbs for their exercise. I wonder if people have these cortisol, hormone, and leptin issues during sedentary hours of the day if they aren't active with any strenuous activity. An hour long weight lifting session usually has 15 to 30 minutes of running in it. I can see how that would burn a person out on a fat adapted diet and cause these issues. If it's a straight hour of weight lifting the person shouldn't need that much carbs, but I could be wrong. My estimates are between 30-50% carb intake during weight lifting.
If you heart rate is 170 or above during a weight lifting session you would need 60% of your intake to be carbs previously before that workout. However, your heart rate really should be 120 beats to 155 beats per a minute during weight lifting. Therefore your carbohydrate intake can be between 30-50%. Hypothetically speaking you would want your carbohydrate intake at 70-90% in that does indeed further boost testosterone levels. I would just think it maintains those levels, especially during prolonged endurance events.
I had to repost this part due to a mistake in wording. Instead of in I meant to put "if".
Hypothetically speaking you would want your carbohydrate intake at 70-90% "if" that does indeed further boost testosterone levels. I would just think it maintains those levels, especially during prolonged endurance events.
I really believe that you only need enough carbs to support that weight lifting session. Anymore than that won't boost testosterone levels. It will maintain the testosterone levels that are being produced. However, if you do 15-30 minutes of running you need a whole lot more carbs and your heart rate may be much higher during the work out leaving your carb requirements higher during the entire session. I currently believe only 3 minutes of running as a warmup is necessary. Otherwise I think one 100 meter sprint at the end of a workout is a great way to enhance performance in the long run.
Interesting study Dan.
What you'll find particularly interesting is that weightlifting at fairly high intensity while on a low-carb diet for me caused…
1) Fat gain
2) Water retention
3) No increase in muscle mass
Every time I stopped all exercise while on a low-carb diet I lost fat and water weight very quickly – up to 5-6 pounds in 10 days.
In fact, the leanest I've been without hunger was on a low-carb diet with hardly any exercise at all – getting about 5 lbs. leaner than the pig's head photos.
Right now, with lots of hiking – which is a 4-6 hour moderate intensity endeavor, I have no doubt that a carbohydrate intake of 70% and above is a great asset. I could hike circles around my low-carb hiking self right now despite being inactive for the past 8 months and weighing 15-20 pounds more.
Sorry I'm off-topic, but I have a question for JT. With a diet of mostly rice and sugar, how do you get enough minerals and vitamins?
Did you do any cardio during the session, how much? What was your heart rate during the entire weightlifting session? How long was your weightlifting session? What was the % of your carb intake? How many calories would you take in before the session?
Here's a couple more interesting articles. According to this study, leptin levels were higher with a higher carb intake:
And according to this web-site, leptin levels are higher when a person consumes more calories and when they carry more bodyfat, zinc and vitamin e also raise leptin:
Riles showed a study stating that a good portion of simple carbs are converted to fat so intake of starches, being that a greater percentage converts to glucose, would raise leptin levels moreso.
If the Muran's milk had the same macronutrient percentage as our own milk when they were consuming 7 quarts a day then they were getting:
322g = 1288cal glucose 29%
336g = 3024cal fat 66%
56g = 224cal protein 5%
They may or may not had high levels of leptin. They definately had high levels of glutathione, the master antioxidant from all the raw milk, blood, and raw meat they consumed.
Here's a good article on cortisol:
Do you have any good articles that state the importance of leptin and what it does? Glutathione has a lot of known benefits. I was interested in comparing the two.
According to this article you can have too much leptin so getting enough leptin shouldn't be too much of a concern. It becomes more of an issue of whether you're getting enough when you have low bodyfat, eating low calorie, or consuming high fat/low carb intake for prolonged periods of exercise. As I stated earlier, depending on your mean heart rate during the exercise session you need a certain percentage of your calories as carbohydrates.
Correction on the Muran macronutrient intake:
224g = 2016cal fat 50%
434g = 1736cal carbohydrate 45%
56g = 224cal protein 5%
After % of protein had been metabolized into glucose.
What are the ideal leptin levels, at what level is it too low, and at what level is it getting too high leading to adverse side effects?
Here's a document on ideal leptin levels. Not sure if you would agree with it. I'd like to hear what you have to say about the matter.
Here's another interesting article. It's about leptin in general and leptin for bodybuilder's looking to get down to 5% bodyfat.
All that counts with leptin is how much active leptin you have. Generally, the more body fat a person has, the higher their leptin level. This doesn't make sense if you scrutinize the role of leptin, which is to raise body temperature and mitochondrial activity while decreasing appetite.
That's due to leptin resistance. They may be producing a lot, but it is non-functional.
So you can't have too much active leptin? One of those articles I posted said something along the lines that if you're producing too much leptin it interferes with itself and it's benefits are hindered.
Technically yes, you can have too much active leptin.
One of the major steps in the discovery of leptin came when a researcher stitched a leptin sensitive, lean mouse to a leptin resistant obese mouse.
The lean mouse quickly stopped eating, became hypermetabolic, and starved to death when attached to an obese mouse producing lots of leptin but without leptin sensitivity.
I found a reason why Freelee and Harley are likely to take in high calorie meals and not gain weight or body fat. Here's one good article from Riles out of many:
I think only 10-20% of the protein from bananas and other fruits is metabolized. Because of this a fruitarian's body switches to a survival mechanism that causes body fat to be burned and thermogenesis to take place. This means they can maintain a low body fat while taking in a much higher level of calories. So it's due to a low protein intake.
It's a great approach for getting and staying lean. I personally wouldn't recommend doing it permanently but that's my own personal opinion. Can't say I would recommend it for bodybuilders or for people that want to weigh over 180 pounds for sport specific reasons.
When protein is low in the diet apparently it also keeps the body at a lower body weight like around 120-145 pounds. It's very hard to gain weight. Now if a vegan were to include food pairing, balancing out the amino acid ratios with varying plant sources I can't say if that would or would not increase the protein absorption. If it does increase the protein absorption it likely wouldn't have the same thermogenic benefits as the 80-10-10 diet.
The higher carb intake may boost insulin and testosterone while lowering lypolysis, cortisol, and the accumulation of body fat.
Since when is wasting body fat a survival mechanism?
That may not be the correct literal term. It's from the blog I linked:
the disadvantage of excessive fat accumulation and
hindrance to optimal locomotion, hunting capabilities,
and the ability to fight or flight."
With thermogenesis fat gets burned from the body.
good post. thanks for sharing this information.
Hey just becoming a member, glad to be in! I'm Norma and I'm inspired by my near death experience, I'm a fan of working and currently being healthful :)
I've been involved in some other forums and have found this area to have a great deal superior content material, so it helps make sense to finally submit!
BTW, what can I do to change the little picture thingy like some people have, I like it but can't figure it out haha
Hey just joining, glad to be in! I glimpse ahead to partcipating and have go through a lot so far, so hello!
Sooo anyways, enough about me, see you around and hello yet again haha.
BTW where is the option to change the time zone for my account? It's kind of weird having the time like 5 hours off lol
Hey just joining, glad to be here! I'm Norma and I'm inspired by life, I enjoy working and currently being balanced :)
Sooo anyways, sufficient info about me, see you around and hello once more haha.
PS, how do I change the little picture thingy like some people have, I like it but can't figure it out haha
Is it possible that one of the reasons that the 30 bannanas a day diet has some benefits (at least in the short term) is due to the resistant starch found in bannanas?
I started eating green bannanas every day to get resistant starch along with a lot of regular starches, meat, other fruits. It definitely makes me more full but I can't tell much more than that because I made other changes soon after adding these bannanas such as eating only three meals a day.
I find it comical watching people comment on how someone looks as a means for determining health. Keep in mind calorie restriction is the only reproducible means of extending life. If our eyes were good Determinants of Healh doctors should do away with equipment, anabolic steroids should be taken in moderation, and bad haircuts would have a negative correlation with event-free survival.
I wonder if a dogs analysis of another dogs health with a urine sniff is as brilliant as our visual test.
Calorie restriction at birth is one of several reproducible means of extending life, and length of life is in no way a qualitative measure. High calorie intake in humans is strongly correlated with increased longevity. Cutting calories once your metabolism has already been established during the growth phase of life only lowers life expectancy and increases ones chances of becoming ill from chronic and infectious illness.
Hello, I would like to subscribe for this weblog to get
hottest updates, thus where can i do it please help.