New World Vegan wrote:
4. Doug's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzk-jh1eemI
. Hardly anyone Doug's age can do those exercises. NO other rawfood "gurus" could even remotely come close to doing that on their high fat/fruit-phobic diets.
It's not simply that they couldn't do it due to their diets being ineffectual for allowing one to be physically fit and strong, but you can't take the small handful of raw "gurus" who look like they haven't worked out a day in their lives and use it as a comparison
If they were concerned with using physical fitness as their key to promoting what they are pushing, I'm sure they'd look a lot better than they do. However, most are too busy selling raw chocolate bars that cost $10 for 2 oz. or are more worried about their next Vision Quest to connect with the spirits in the Andes
I've met a couple of guys in their 60s/early 70s who lived their entire lives off of meat-heavy diets, and these guys could toss Dr. Graham around like a bean bag if they were so inclined, their levels of fitness and strength are amazing for their age. It doesn't mean that their diets are superior, moreso that they trained hard, trained consistently, and worked out intelligently for many years to get where they did. Heck, a friend of mine who is no longer around (RIP) was a top-level division 1 athlete in college, and 90% of his food consisted of $1.00 per box pasta eaten twice per day with a little tomato sauce. Healthy? Not really. Did he thrive on it for a few years during times he had no money for quality food to where he was at the top of his field? Yes. But, I wouldn't go around claiming that it was the key to his success in sports, as that would be denying the real reasons he accomplished what he did.
Sometimes, people become more enamored with the cult of personality behind someone who wants to prove a "superior" diet than to consider the history that got them to where they are. If someone showed me a pic of Dr. Graham from 3 years ago and I saw that he was a 300 lb. couch potato, I'd say that the diet itself may have lent a great deal to his accomplishments. However, if he was doing these same exercises 20 years ago, maintaining is very different from progressing, something to consider.
If people choose to follow the 80/10/10, that's all fine and good. However, there's still no evidence to prove it superior to anything else aside from some people saying they "feel more alive" or something of that sort, but just as well, I've seen no shortage of people who say it makes them feel like crap. Anything "perfect" does not have the option to be so drastically split for opinion, so I simply view it as anything else, a diet radical in concept that sounds somewhat healthy, but simultaneously sounds like it would make me miserable to do myself (not to mention, I know my body well enough to be aware that I'd fall apart by doing it, low fat low protein is the opposite of what I thrive on).
Best of luck to those who do it, I just prefer a little more science and a little less "religious faith" in my diet programs