rawsomehealth wrote:
I don't mean to poke and prod, but the entire 80/10/10 book is based in and references numerous scientific materials.
The one issue I have with a lot of raw foods "science" is that a lot of the "facts" are taken from context in regard to what other species eat or are often bits that are hand-picked to suit the argument while ignoring things that can poke holes in the theories. But, that's the same for most everything that tries to promote itself as being better than other similar programs. I'm just not sold on a lot of raw idealism because it's no more infallible than other diets that make claims that aren't universally true.
rawsomehealth wrote:
Every other creature on the planet adheres to their species specific diet. The creature that anatomically and physiologically most closely matches our make-up is the bonobo chimpanzee; whose diet is composed of fruits and vegetables. Until 1950, the encyclopedia Britannica correctly classified the human as frugivores, as we are classified as anthropoid primates.
Again, my problem with the "science" being that we truly can't compare ourselves perfectly to that which we're closest to species-wise. No matter how similar many factors are between ourselves and chimpanzees may be, we're still two entirely different creatures, so that's why I'm not big on much of the raw hullaballo that insists we need to share the exact same diet without exception for optimal health. And, one argument that always makes things more interesting is the notion that, if we begin to say we're so close to chimpanzees that we need to follow their lead dietary-wise, where do we draw the line for saying that it simultaneously is not acceptable to perform animal testing on them? I mean, if we're so close to each other physically that we need to adopt their mode of eating because we're that similar, it would carry over to the pro-vivisection argument quite well, something I'm not keen on agreeing with either. It's difficult to separate the two when people make every effort to draw parallels diet-wise, but then want to change the game when it comes to medical research.
Not to mention the low protein and low fat aspect of 80/10/10 unfortunately does not lend itself to the goals of everyone - if you're concerned with building the most in the way of size and strength, low protein and low fat are not ideal, general science has shown this time and time again (not to mention I've never seen/met a raw bodybuilder who truly had an amazing physique, aside from LeanAndGreen who consumed spirulina by the truckload for his protein intake and is not the typical raw guy). I've seen a few raw athletes who had very good physiques, but for someone who has an aire of pure, raw power and strength and can put up the numbers to verify it's not just for show, I'm not so sure anyone like that has existed...yet.
rawsomehealth wrote:
I truly want to be doing the best thing for myself, I think we all do. Let's work together to find out the best program. I don't want to be following a diet that doesn't work, but I still haven't been given any legitimate reason not to follow a program that is giving me all the results I desired and more that I never thought of. I appreciate your help in this endeavor, family.
Like I said, more power to those who do something like the 80/10/10 and feel great for it. I won't discourage anyone who truly and honestly feels great for changing to a diet such as that one, if it makes someone feel better and more energetic, that's awesome. That is, so long as it is actual feeling from the heart and not simply being sucked into believing that one has to stand up for their choice even if it isn't as wonderful as they'd wished it would be.
The unfortunate state I've found with many people who have gone raw or tried variations of it like 80/10/10 is that I've seen no shortage of ex-raw people who did it for some time with nearly religious fervor, but eventually did not feel great on the diets and opted to go back to adding in cooked foods again. And, many times when they were struggling with not feeling good on the diet, they caught hell from other raw enthisiasts for even questioning the diet's ability to be ideal for everyone - if they were feeling tired, they weren't eating enough bananas. If they said their healing time slowed down, it was because they drank tea in the morning. If they were looking jaundiced, it was that they needed to not wash their fruit. If their teeth turned greyish and started to have excessive decay from massive fruit intake, it was that they weren't eating the "right fruits". Just one excuse after another for so many who struggled with such diets where the community wasn't supportive of the fact that for some people, it just isn't a good idea to eat that way.
For some time during their raw phases, many of these people would have severed a limb to prove their allegiance to the diet they once held in high regard only to eventually say that they never felt as good as they
wanted to believe they did while on it. Sometimes, we as people tend to put on blinders when we get into something new that we really WANT to see succeed, but it isn't always in the cards for everyone to work well on the same diet.
So, as I've said, if it truly and honestly makes someone feel better for going on a diet like 80/10/10, more power to them for making that choice. HOWEVER, I will always take issue with anyone who claims that they have a diet that's superior to all others, anything that claims to make one disease-proof, and anything that does not allow for skepticism when someone follows the program perfectly and just can't feel good while doing it. As long as one doesn't lose their common sense and ability to see things logically and rationally while trying something new, by all means, give it a shot!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
(or tea in general)